222 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

Hmmm, curing cancer vs kittens... Horrible as I may be, I'd run a cat stud farm. Would I be allowed to anesthetize the kittens? If they didn't suffer, I wouldn't even feel guilt.



And while there is big $$ in cancer treatment, there's the added complication that cancer is not one illness so a cure for one would not be a cure for all. However, there is research going on for cancer research around the world -- Pfizer would be bumming if University of New Mexico ended up owning the patent to a cancer cure. The research IS being done.

[DWSmiley]

Ferretinabun wrote...

DWSmiley - Interesting that you speak of evil as though it is something objective. It is not. It is a value we place on things. It is not a quality which spreads, grows, erodes or degrades any more than happiness or morality is.

Avernus seems driven by a consuming desire to explore, experiment, and understand the Warden's taint - with an eye to harnessing it. A noble and fascinating goal. His flaw is that he is willing to sacrifice his fellows as test subjects. Could years locked away have given him time to reflect and regret? Perhaps. Would he still consider his experiments worth the price of life once Soldier's Peak was made safe again, and he was no longer under seige by demons? Again, perhaps.

But what right does your warden claim to be judge, jury and executioner? Avernus is still a fellow Grey Warden, after all, and many years your senior.

You don't think values spread?  Really?  Every society has an ethos that evolves over time.

I'm not talking about evil itself degrading; I'm saying it has that effect on people.  If someone tortures or is tortured, it changes who they are.  (Not a psychopath, perhaps, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)  It's hard to imagine anyone claiming it changed them for the better and harder to imagine believing such a claim.  A society that views torture as useful will tend to be use it more often.  Situation X was really drastic and so it was considered justified.  Situation Y comes along that's maybe not quite so drastic but hey, why not?  It becomes another tool in the toolbox.

The Warden has no choice but to judge Avernus.  To do nothing with him is still a decision.  I take as given that what he did was evil.  Some may consider it justifiable evil but it was evil, nonetheless.  Nor was it done in the heat of the moment - he tortured them for over three months.  He has no regret when you first meet him and getting him to say "sorry" hardly matters.  I don't see how his seniority counts as an excuse.

I will give him this - he submits to being executed.  But that means he and my warden are in agreement on my judgment.

Now, my warden's philospohy is not always my own and I have played Wardens who spared him; .  One even put no restriction on his future research.  "Anything it takes" is bound to be applied differently.  Every warden has his or her own limits.

[Xilizhra]

As for the video game... is it totally megalomaniacal of me to wonder if Grey Wardens will eventually be able to take control of darkspawn, if Avernus' research continues?

[Ryzaki]

errant_knight wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Let me ask - if Avernus' experiments had led to discovering an amazing secret about the Taint/Warden blood which could be harness and used effectively against the darkspawn, nullifying the threat of them and future Blights and saving thousands of lives, would you have considered them worth the cost?

No. Some things are just wrong. If you could cure cancer by putting kittens humans in a blender, would you do it?

At least that makes slightly more sense.

And no I wouldn't. But kittens? Hell yes I'd place kittens in a blender to cure cancer. But other people? No.

[DWSmiley]

ejoslin wrote...

Hmmm, curing cancer vs kittens... Horrible as I may be, I'd run a cat stud farm. Would I be allowed to anesthetize the kittens? If they didn't suffer, I wouldn't even feel guilt.

And while there is big $$ in cancer treatment, there's the added complication that cancer is not one illness so a cure for one would not be a cure for all. However, there is research going on for cancer research around the world -- Pfizer would be bumming if University of New Mexico ended up owning the patent to a cancer cure. The research IS being done.

Would you put babies in a blender?  How about one baby?  Just one baby and cancer is cured!  And if one, how about two?  And if two...

EDIT:  Ah, ninja'd by Ryzaki.

Modifié par DWSmiley, 27 octobre 2010 - 09:38 .

[Sarah1281]

Until someone can come up with a reason why kittens/humans/babies/whatever else is small and cute being put in a blender would help to cure cancer, this really is a pointless discussion.

[Ferretinabun]

DWSmiley wrote...

You don't think values spread?  Really?  Every society has an ethos that evolves over time.

I'm not talking about evil itself degrading; I'm saying it has that effect on people.  If someone tortures or is tortured, it changes who they are.  (Not a psychopath, perhaps, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)  It's hard to imagine anyone claiming it changed them for the better and harder to imagine believing such a claim.  A society that views torture as useful will tend to be use it more often.  Situation X was really drastic and so it was considered justified.  Situation Y comes along that's maybe not quite so drastic but hey, why not?  It becomes another tool in the toolbox.

It CAN work like that, but not always. Some people build on their bad deeds, pushing the limits of acceptability further and further, it's true. But others genuinely repent. People do turn over new leaves.

The Warden has no choice but to judge Avernus.  To do nothing with him is still a decision.  I take as given that what he did was evil.  Some may consider it justifiable evil but it was evil, nonetheless.  Nor was it done in the heat of the moment - he tortured them for over three months.  He has no regret when you first meet him and getting him to say "sorry" hardly matters.  I don't see how his seniority counts as an excuse.

I won't argue what he did was terrible. But I'm instinctively wary of execution, simply because it denies the person the chance to repent (I mean that without the religious overtones). Avernus' displays little remorse initially, but that could be just too proud to admit it. The fact that he does submit to exectution suggests to me he knows he might deserve it.

Now, my warden's philospohy is not always my own and I have played Wardens who spared him; .  One even put no restriction on his future research.  "Anything it takes" is bound to be applied differently.  Every warden has his or her own limits.

Then we share a gaming philosophy at least. I have wardens who have killed him (well, not yet, but my next one probably will - a religious human noble which loathes all magic, as part of a no-mage run thorugh. Should be fun ).

[DWSmiley]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Until someone can come up with a reason why kittens/humans/babies/whatever else is small and cute being put in a blender would help to cure cancer, this really is a pointless discussion.

No, it's a more graphic way to question whether the end justifies the means.  And on that note:

@Xilizhra - If some doctors did this (in secret, of course) and then announced it, would you say, "Shame on you for what you did to those babies but you did cure cancer and what's past is past.  So here's a bunch of research money, just promise not to do that again."

[Xilizhra]

Amusingly, that's exactly what the US government did after WWII.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731



And that was only for getting juicy bioweapons data. But in my own case... yes, in an ideal situation wherein no one else had to know about the whole babies thing. If it did become public knowledge, things could get a lot messier.

[DWSmiley]

Yes, I had that unit in mind.  There is hazard in bringing the context of this discussion into modern RL, so I'll say no more.

[Xilizhra]

I will say that Avernus doesn't seem like a For The Evulz kind of guy; whatever he did, he at least thought was necessary for the greater good.

[Sarah1281]

DWSmiley wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Until someone can come up with a reason why kittens/humans/babies/whatever else is small and cute being put in a blender would help to cure cancer, this really is a pointless discussion.

No, it's a more graphic way to question whether the end justifies the means. 

What those ends are matter and so did those means. It's really more of a case-by-case basis than just saying  'no, we can't do any immoral things ever to get much-needed results.'

[ejoslin]

DWSmiley wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Hmmm, curing cancer vs kittens... Horrible as I may be, I'd run a cat stud farm. Would I be allowed to anesthetize the kittens? If they didn't suffer, I wouldn't even feel guilt.

And while there is big $$ in cancer treatment, there's the added complication that cancer is not one illness so a cure for one would not be a cure for all. However, there is research going on for cancer research around the world -- Pfizer would be bumming if University of New Mexico ended up owning the patent to a cancer cure. The research IS being done.

Would you put babies in a blender?  How about one baby?  Just one baby and cancer is cured!  And if one, how about two?  And if two...

EDIT:  Ah, ninja'd by Ryzaki.

Kittens aren't human babies.  I answered a specific question and said I'd raise the cats myself..  What you asked is different.  Just keep in mind, people of all ages and situations are on these boards.  

Peace!

Edit: And of course, I won't leave it alone.  If it's a choice between one or two lives, and hundreds of thousands of lives...  it's not quite an easy call for me really.  Very disturbing for sure, but if the cure is guaranteed, you have to think how many more babies you're killing by not doing this.

 Fortunately, cancer really can't be cured this way.  I do know I'd give up my own life (though not one of those I love) if it would cure cancer.  In a second.

Edit: Snipped something personal.  *grin* I should not write when only half paying attention.

Modifié par ejoslin, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:21 .

[Ryzaki]

Frankly I'd take the person close to me over a hundred thousand people. Selfish I am but eh. That's what I would do.

Now sacrificing a random baby to cure cancer? No one close to me ever died from cancer so no I wouldn't do it. I'm not placing that on my conconious when I get nothing out of it.

That said...sure you can't cure cancer by sacrificing babies (if you could it'd been cured long ago) at least not in the normal stab em through the heart way.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:19 .

[DWSmiley]

Sarah1281 wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Until someone can come up with a reason why kittens/humans/babies/whatever else is small and cute being put in a blender would help to cure cancer, this really is a pointless discussion.

No, it's a more graphic way to question whether the end justifies the means. 

What those ends are matter and so did those means. It's really more of a case-by-case basis than just saying  'no, we can't do any immoral things ever to get much-needed results.'

I agree to an extent.  Morality often comes in shades of grey.  But I would say that if something is so immoral as to warrant being deemed evil, then that case is decided.

[ejoslin]

Evil is not absolute. Hell, once you start calling things "evil" you're starting holy wars. There are different ethics for different cultures for sure.  There are some things that are just horrible, that is true.  But other things, they may actually have a greater good.

I don't know -- if ethics were absolute, it wouldn't be its own field.

Modifié par ejoslin, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:22 .

[Addai]

I think the RL examples aren't serving the topic very well. For one thing, morality in our day is a different story than in the DA universe. Safe to say that Avernus would not be a popular man if the Chantry knew about him (as Wynne implies that they will if you bring her along, since she's going to go blab). Someone was talking about values spread. I think it brings up the idea of the values spread of the Chantry's way of handling mages. I always feel like, with the Mage's Collective quests and other things, that subtly undermining that system is a higher good, from one POV.



Of course, I imagine compared to Qunari the Fereldan Circle is going to start to seem cuddly and enlightened.

[Ryzaki]

So rape is morally grey? So child abuse is morally grey? Torture is morally grey?

I mean everything isn't black and white but there's just some things that can be considered evil and some good. ...Though someone's MMV on those three mine doesn't. There is never an excuse for any of the above aside from vindictive satisifcation. (Information during Torture is often useless as people will say whatever you want to get the pain to stop.) 

Helping everyone you meet without any judgement or expecting pay is a good thing. Saving a human's life is a good thing.

Granted the actions can go from a "good thing" to a bad thing through intent. But I'm sure most will agree giving the poor kid some money to buy food is a good thing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:26 .

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

Evil is not absolute. Hell, once you start calling things "evil" you're starting holy wars. There are different ethics for different cultures for sure.  There are some things that are just horrible, that is true.  But other things, they may actually have a greater good.

I don't know -- if ethics were absolute, it wouldn't be its own field.

Yes, exactly my point above.  Righteous crusading can be just as pernicious an impulse and the Chantry is a far more powerful and pervasive institution than one Warden mage.

[Addai]

Ryzaki wrote...

So rape is morally grey? So child abuse is morally grey? Torture is morally grey?

I mean everything isn't black and white but there's just some things that can be considered evil and some good.

Helping everyone you meet without any judgement or expecting pay is a good thing. Saving a human's life is a good thing.

I think the question lies in motive.  Avernus thinks he is doing something worthwhile to help humanity in the long run, as with other Wardens who burn villages etc.

[Xilizhra]

Ryzaki wrote...

So rape is morally grey? So child abuse is morally grey? Torture is morally grey?

I mean everything isn't black and white but there's just some things that can be considered evil and some good. ...Though someone's MMV on those three mine doesn't. There is never an excuse for any of the above aside from vindictive satisifcation. (Information during Torture is often useless as people will say whatever you want to get the pain to stop.) 

Helping everyone you meet without any judgement or expecting pay is a good thing. Saving a human's life is a good thing.

It's circumstantial, though I'll agree that without bizarre magical reasons that make any of the above three vital necessities, they count as pointlessly evil. However, the last two "good things" there aren't necessarily so in all circumstances. Helping Brother Burkel set up a Chantry in Orzammar turns out to be a bad thing, and I would argue that giving the Chantry the means to better combat Dalish magic is also a bad thing.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So rape is morally grey? So child abuse is morally grey? Torture is morally grey?

I mean everything isn't black and white but there's just some things that can be considered evil and some good.

Helping everyone you meet without any judgement or expecting pay is a good thing. Saving a human's life is a good thing.

I think the question lies in motive.  Avernus thinks he is doing something worthwhile to help humanity in the long run, as with other Wardens who burn villages etc.

Aye. I do consider his decisions to be morally grey. But to say everything is grey is stretching it.

[DWSmiley]

ejoslin wrote...

[Kittens aren't human babies.  I answered a specific question and said I'd raise the cats myself..  What you asked is different.  Just keep in mind, people of all ages and situations are on these boards.  

Peace!

Edit: And of course, I won't leave it alone.  If it's a choice between one or two lives, and hundreds of thousands of lives...  it's not quite an easy call for me really.  Very disturbing for sure, but if the cure is guaranteed, you have to think how many more babies you're killing by not doing this.

 Fortunately, cancer really can't be cured this way.  I do know I'd give up my own life (though not one of those I love) if it would cure cancer.  In a second.

Edit: Snipped something personal.  *grin* I should not write when only half paying attention.

I didn't mean to touch upon your life.  I apologize.  And, yes, I know I was changing the question.

Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter, imo.  A cost/benefit analysis of evil is way too murky for me to ever accept.  The benefits can be deceptively enticing and turn out not to be so achievable.  The costs can be vague yet signficant.  The equation totally changes, of course, if people voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

[Ryzaki]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So rape is morally grey? So child abuse is morally grey? Torture is morally grey?

I mean everything isn't black and white but there's just some things that can be considered evil and some good. ...Though someone's MMV on those three mine doesn't. There is never an excuse for any of the above aside from vindictive satisifcation. (Information during Torture is often useless as people will say whatever you want to get the pain to stop.) 

Helping everyone you meet without any judgement or expecting pay is a good thing. Saving a human's life is a good thing.

It's circumstantial, though I'll agree that without bizarre magical reasons that make any of the above three vital necessities, they count as pointlessly evil. However, the last two "good things" there aren't necessarily so in all circumstances. Helping Brother Burkel set up a Chantry in Orzammar turns out to be a bad thing, and I would argue that giving the Chantry the means to better combat Dalish magic is also a bad thing.

Aye. I edited after you saw. :innocent: They are good things but they lead to undesirable results. That doesn't stop the actions from being good things they just lead to poor results. (Giving the kid money leads to bim being beaten to death by burglurs for instance). Helping the kid was a good act but it lead to him being killed. That wasn't your fault, and it sucks but it was a result of your actions sadly.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:29 .

[ejoslin]

Ryzaki wrote...

So rape is morally grey? So child abuse is morally grey? Torture is morally grey?

I mean everything isn't black and white but there's just some things that can be considered evil and some good. ...Though someone's MMV on those three mine doesn't. There is never an excuse for any of the above aside from vindictive satisifcation. (Information during Torture is often useless as people will say whatever you want to get the pain to stop.) 

Helping everyone you meet without any judgement or expecting pay is a good thing. Saving a human's life is a good thing.

Granted the actions can go from a "good thing" to a bad thing through intent. But I'm sure most will agree giving the poor kid some money to buy food is a good thing.

But I didn't say this.  At all.  

Edit: Took out the beginning of an inflammatory ethical argument!

Modifié par ejoslin, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:30 .