>>102529>Meaning that the monster may be a punishment by the gods for a human breaking morals (example: God sends a 2 headed tiger to kill villagers because they didn't tithe to him), but that the two headed tiger itself is still not good/evil because it has no sense of morality.
You are correct the second part of the sentence is this direct, and I did manage to parse it.>Meaning monsters can't be good/evil because there is no sense of morality to them.
According to who? Hell, what the fuck even is a "moral order"? Assuming it exists, how can something be "outside" it? If they meant "the creature has no sense of morality" than they should have said that, but that doesn't sound like what "outside the moral order" implies.> The same way that a dog couldn't commit murder even if it kills someone because a dog has no concept of morals.
So the moral order is the law?
I suppose the more direct version is >what differentiates an animal monster from a non-animal monster? Is it just being human-shaped? Or is it sentience and/or sapience?>what the fuck a moral order is>how something manages to be outside it
>>102536https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster>Anyhow anything can be a monster or a creature including you.
How does the simple article manage to be even more nonsense?