222 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

For me personally killing someone isn't immoral. Never has been. Neither is stealing

I can see why stealing might not be considered immoral but randomly walking up to someone you don't know and whose death you will not profit by and killing them isn't immoral either? Why not?

[Ryzaki]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

^the above poster

But who are you to say what's moral and immoral? And what's immoral for one person may actually be a decision of morality for others.

I see.

I'm not really trying to. I think the two examples I used (rescuing a random drowning baby for a moral one and randomly stabbing a stranger in the neck as an immoral one) are pretty non-controversial. If you can tell me why that might be an immoral and moral thing to do respectively then that would be great. I suppose you could argue with me about whether a decision that is called a shade of grey (not any in specific, just any one that earns that name) is moral or immoral but I believe that if these 'shades of grey' decisions can so easily be put into either category then they aren't really a shade of grey decision but are, instead, moral or immoral.

The child has a genetic disease that will kill it slowly and painfully within the next few months. Or the child in some cultures was a rape child and killing it will spare the mother from shame. The child could have a deformity and killing it could be seen as a mercy kill. Those could be seen in some people's view to be perfectly moral reasons for killing the child. Hell killing it could be seen as revenge for a crime imagined or real and it would still be morally right to that person.

Nothing can be easily put into such a category part of the point though. You can say something's moral, and a hundred people could agree with you but if a single person says "uh...not really." then it can't be so easily placed in a box.

Yeah. I don't agree. The whole moral and immoral is simply a social construct. It's not something tangible that'll never change and it doesn't apply across all cultures and the like.

Their are only decisions people choose to make. Societies may lable them immoral or moral but the decisions are just choices one makes.

Sarah1281 wrote...
I can see why stealing might not be considered immoral but randomly
walking up to someone you don't know and whose death you will not profit
by and killing them isn't immoral either? Why not?

How do you know I wouldn't profit from their death? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]Hell my profit could just be enjoying killing them. And no it's not immoral to me. If that person didn't manage to kill me first he/she earned their fate. That said I wouldn't wander around killing people for no reason because there is little profit in it other than personal satisifcation. (Unless I saw they had something valuable on them). I mean giving money out is legal. Do you randomly go around giving money to folks? No? I didn't think so.
As it's a crime I won't do such a thing. And before the invitable comes up. No I wouldn't call someone who attacks me evil. I'd consider them a threat and try to kill them first.

Edit: And it's considered immoral because the last thing those in power want is for any one to be able to walk up to them and kill them without consequences for their actions.


As for stealing: People take people's who life savings and completely destroy the other person's life. Leading to them committing suicide. I fail to see how that's more "moral" than killing the person outright.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 octobre 2010 - 01:08 .

[DWSmiley]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So wouldn't that come back to morality being highly if not solely subjective?

Yes.

There are ways to avoid it that does not involve outright banning. It could be via legal and institutional mechanisms that support exceptions depending on circumstances. It could be via personal convinction and self-regulation.  None of those ways are perfect and have a guaranteed positive result. And your concern over setting a dangerous precedent is certainly valid. 

I am dubious of self-regulation.  A saint, sure, but otherwise, no.  I am also dubious of insitutional mechanisms that support exceptions but I suppose that is the least bad choice.  I am inclined to think there would have to be negative repercussions no matter what, to ensure no slipping.  You authorize or commit torture and review supports the decision, you still pay a price.  The certainty of that would guarantee the sincerity of deciding torture was necessary.  And if review does not support the decision, the price is much higher.  But then, of course, the acts will stay hidden.  Ah, such a tangled web.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

For me personally killing someone isn't immoral. Never has been. Neither is stealing

I can see why stealing might not be considered immoral but randomly walking up to someone you don't know and whose death you will not profit by and killing them isn't immoral either? Why not?

I think it's defintely useful to label that immoral and punish it quite severily as you can't have a society where this is allowed.

Is it factually / objectively immoral though? I don't think I am qualified enough to make that absolute statement.

[KnightofPhoenix]

DWSmiley wrote...
I am dubious of self-regulation.  A saint, sure, but otherwise, no.  I am also dubious of insitutional mechanisms that support exceptions but I suppose that is the least bad choice.  I am inclined to think there would have to be negative repercussions no matter what, to ensure no slipping.  You authorize or commit torture and review supports the decision, you still pay a price.  The certainty of that would guarantee the sincerity of deciding torture was necessary.  And if review does not support the decision, the price is much higher.  But then, of course, the acts will stay hidden.  Ah, such a tangled web.

Every big decisions will have repercussion, positive and negative, as I believe there is no choice without pros and cons (otherwise it would be perfect). There is a price to pay for really every big decision and it's up to individuals to see if it's worth it or not.
If you for instance take a "selfless" route to save others, you would be paying a price personally as well or vis a vis society if they think what you are doing is wrong.

So that's my main problem with this. The fact that decisions might have negative repercussions (like being viewed as bad by the public) does not necessarily mean that the act itself is immoral; and that there might be ways to avoid or alleviate those negative repercussions such as hiding it or manipulating the media to present it in better light.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 octobre 2010 - 01:22 .

[DWSmiley]

Ryzaki wrote...

My profit could just be enjoying killing them. And no it's not immoral to me. If that person didn't manage to kill me first he/she earned their fate.

That would be psychopathic, of course.  Or, to be up to date, antisocial personaility disorder.  And it is certainly a disroder as we evolved as social beings.  There are no universally accepted concepts of moral behaviour but morality only exists as a social concept.  It is meaningless if considered a purely individual choice.

[Ryzaki]

DWSmiley wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

My profit could just be enjoying killing them. And no it's not immoral to me. If that person didn't manage to kill me first he/she earned their fate.

That would be psychopathic, of course.  Or, to be up to date, antisocial personaility disorder.  And it is certainly a disroder as we evolved as social beings.  There are no universally accepted concepts of moral behaviour but morality only exists as a social concept.  It is meaningless if considered a purely individual choice.

Not really. A Pscyhopath has no measures of empathy. I could understand someone's pain and the feeling of being in such a position and still enjoy the thought of killing them (of course this is if they gave me a reason). Anti-social does fit me more to be frank. Of course personally I wouldn't kill someone unless they did something to p*** me off astronomically or in self-defense. But my morality =/= all morality. And neither does any collective group because another group might decide to contradict them.

...Dude stop repeating what I've said already! Not meaingless. Just very fluid and people wouldn't be able to point and say X is not moral! Like they do now because it would all be subjective.

That said I understand why societies do such groupings but that doesn't make them any more real than the tooth fairy.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 octobre 2010 - 01:34 .

[Addai]

DWSmiley wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...

Yeah, my wardens always drink his cocktail.  It's there and to not drink it rectifies nothing.

I'm surprised, given what you've written about moral drift and all that.

The only person affected by drinking the cocktail is me and the effect is purely physical.  Well, I suppose one could be concerned about an aura attached to thing but my wardens aren't very mystical.

Avernus is different.  Punishing him changes naught of the past but may well have considerable effect on the future.  There is the sparkling practical effect of finding a safer, more potent use for the Taint.  And there is the murky effect of tolerating evil behaviour.

If you use your power, it affects everyone you use it against and anyone who sees you using it, like your crew.  They also were affected when they (presumbly) witnessed you drinking it.  So I think the potential ripple effects could be wider than leaving Avernus alive for a few more years.  You give justification to his acts by profiting from them, even for a good cause.

[DWSmiley]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The fact that decisions might have negative repercussions (like being viewed as bad by the public) does not necessarily mean that the act itself is immoral; and that there might be ways to avoid or alleviate those negative repercussions such as hiding it or manipulating the media to present it in better light.

I believe some acts, such as torture, are necessarily immoral.  No exceptions.  But there are situations - in theory at least - where immorality is justifiable.  The lesser of two evils.  And certainly there are people who are supremely self-confident and could consider totrue to be generally wrong except when they judge it necessary, and who would not feel any pangs of wrong-doing.  Anora leaps to mind.  But I would not share their confidence in themselves nor wish them to have carte blanche to make such decisions.  And there is still the problem of the practice spreading to less gifted people.

[DWSmiley]

Ryzaki wrote...

That said I understand why societies do such groupings but that doesn't make them any more real than the tooth fairy.

Quite a bit more real, actually.  Moral standards lead to sanctions against transgressors.  Such sanctions let people walk down the street without fear for their lives.  Really.  The tooth fairy cannot provide that.

[DWSmiley]

Addai67 wrote...

If you use your power, it affects everyone you use it against and anyone who sees you using it, like your crew.  They also were affected when they (presumbly) witnessed you drinking it.  So I think the potential ripple effects could be wider than leaving Avernus alive for a few more years.  You give justification to his acts by profiting from them, even for a good cause.

To deny the utility of his research would be false.  My warden acknowledges the ends but does not accept the means.  While I agree symbolic gestures can be potent, that seems very unlikely in this case.  But I could see a warden who accepts no tinge of grey destroying the potion.

[Ryzaki]

DWSmiley wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

That said I understand why societies do such groupings but that doesn't make them any more real than the tooth fairy.

Quite a bit more real, actually.  Moral standards lead to sanctions against transgressors.  Such sanctions let people walk down the street without fear for their lives.  Really.  The tooth fairy cannot provide that.

Uh. No it doesn't. It just means that their are laws against murder not that murder is morally wrong.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 octobre 2010 - 06:53 .

[ejoslin]

Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. There are plenty of instances where taking a life is not murder. When it is wrong to take a life and when it is ok depends very much on your society.



Fear can be a very strong detriment to crime as well. A police state does not necessarily mean a society with stronger morals.

[Ryzaki]

ejoslin wrote...

Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. There are plenty of instances where taking a life is not murder. When it is wrong to take a life and when it is ok depends very much on your society.

Fear can be a very strong detriment to crime as well. A police state does not necessarily mean a society with stronger morals.

Holy crap I just had a intense sense of Deja vu.

But yes I meant killing someone not murder exactly. But the fact that killing someone in a non-war/without defending youself is seen as immoral and as such was illegalized by a law.

Fear is a determinet to crime in some cases.

The last bit is a bit confusing seeing as I never brought up more laws = stronger morals. Laws were made for the benefit of society and may have been influenced by certain people's (or in most cases a whole group's) personal beliefs doesn't make the laws themselves moral or immoral.

Private corporations can get away with taking most of the water from a community using legality. The laws doesn't make their actions moral or immoral personal interpretation does, which makes the whole thing subjective.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 octobre 2010 - 09:25 .

[ejoslin]

I wasn't responding to you, though I was responding to DWSmiley, but extremely lazy about quoting.

[Ryzaki]

ejoslin wrote...

I wasn't responding to you, though I was responding to DWSmiley, but extremely lazy about quoting.

Odd...seeing as I was the one who brought up murder.

But laziness indeed you could've just did the whole @DWSmiley like the rest of the lazy people do.

[DWSmiley]

ejoslin wrote...

I wasn't responding to you, though I was responding to DWSmiley, but extremely lazy about quoting.

Oh!  Certainly, not all sanctions are based on moral standards but many are and they have a real impact on people's lives.  My point was that that gives them a dimension of reality.  And there are other dimensions, too.  For instance, studies have shown that the pleasure centres in peoples' brains activate when doing an altruistic deed.

[Addai]

DWSmiley wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If you use your power, it affects everyone you use it against and anyone who sees you using it, like your crew.  They also were affected when they (presumbly) witnessed you drinking it.  So I think the potential ripple effects could be wider than leaving Avernus alive for a few more years.  You give justification to his acts by profiting from them, even for a good cause.

To deny the utility of his research would be false.  My warden acknowledges the ends but does not accept the means.  While I agree symbolic gestures can be potent, that seems very unlikely in this case.  But I could see a warden who accepts no tinge of grey destroying the potion.

For one thing, you encourage the attitude that the ends do justify the means and thus could encourage future Avernuses.

I think the only Wardens I've had who smash the cocktail are Andrastian and see it as blood magic that can't be sanctioned in any form.

[ejoslin]

Ryzaki wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I wasn't responding to you, though I was responding to DWSmiley, but extremely lazy about quoting.

Odd...seeing as I was the one who brought up murder.

But laziness indeed you could've just did the whole @DWSmiley like the rest of the lazy people do.

Ah, you're right, but I was just tossing those out there.  I figured that people would see what was appropriate for them.  HOWEVER, I do know that's lazier than usual.  A day later, I'm not even sure what I was talking about @@

[DWSmiley]

Addai67 wrote...

For one thing, you encourage the attitude that the ends do justify the means and thus could encourage future Avernuses.

I think the only Wardens I've had who smash the cocktail are Andrastian and see it as blood magic that can't be sanctioned in any form.

I should think his execution to be rather more discouraging.

The Joining ritual is blood magic but, hmm, an Andrastian Warden probably should smash the cocktail.  I shall have to go to confession, if they have such a thing.

[Mnemnosyne]

I'm pretty sure the chantry's confessionals, if they have such a thing, include instant-kill traps that they trigger on anyone who they even suspect of doing anything remotely related to blood magic.  Heh.

As to destroying the vial, none of my characters have ever, or likely will ever do it.  I would consider that a crime of the highest order.  No matter the feelings on how something was created or obtained, once it exists, destroying it means that anyone harmed in the process of making it truly died for nothing, and beyond that, it destroys something useful that already exists purely on the basis of disagreement with events that cannot be reversed or affected by its destruction.

The only time destroying something of that nature could be logically justified is if it would reverse, partially reverse, or somehow lessen the damage that was caused by its creation.  Like if the souls of the dead wardens were bound to it and unable to rest, and only its destruction could free them, then there would be a rational argument for destroying it.  Otherwise, if you disagree with its creation, fine, discourage further creation by punishing the creator.

[Addai]

DWSmiley wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

For one thing, you encourage the attitude that the ends do justify the means and thus could encourage future Avernuses.

I think the only Wardens I've had who smash the cocktail are Andrastian and see it as blood magic that can't be sanctioned in any form.

I should think his execution to be rather more discouraging.

The Joining ritual is blood magic but, hmm, an Andrastian Warden probably should smash the cocktail.  I shall have to go to confession, if they have such a thing.

Well, to play devil's advocate, executing the creator while using his creation is pretty hypocritical.  By using the cocktail you justify what was done to create it and vindicate Avernus' POV that what he did was necessary to save more lives.

[DWSmiley]

Addai67 wrote...

Well, to play devil's advocate, executing the creator while using his creation is pretty hypocritical.  By using the cocktail you justify what was done to create it and vindicate Avernus' POV that what he did was necessary to save more lives.

If Avernus’ actions had lead to a reversible outcome then accepting it would be hypocritical.  But destroying the cocktail undoes nothing and executing him is a severe repudiation of his actions.  Allowing him to continue his research with restrictions is the grey area.  My (imperfectly) devout warden deems that unacceptable.
 
@Koyasha – Then I’d best become the new Hero of Ferelden before confessing!