[quote]jb1983 wrote...
Here's a very simple question (well, simple to ask, not simple to answer) that will answer whether or not Anders was justified:
Is it ever right to intentionally kill an innocent person in order to achieve a good thing?[/quote]
This is a very old, very interesting, often hotly debated question, with, as you've said, no easy answer. But to begin to answer the question, we can look at the concept of a "just war":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War [quote]"Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing
jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing
jus in bello, right conduct within war. "[/quote]
So let's have a look at the criteria for
jus ad bellum, first, and evaluate the events of DA2 in that light:
[quote]
Just cause "The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:
"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."[/quote]
Is innocent life in imminent danger if war is not waged in the DA-verse? Of course it is! We have mages being dragged off to the Tower, lobotomized, murdered, raped, etc. over and over. We have the well-meaning cousin in DA2 Lowtown who is nearly slaughtered by Templars for giving her mage cousin food and a place to stay for the night. We have families that are ripped apart to maintain the status quo. We have Templars, good ones, who refuse to send
their own mage children to the Circle for fear of what the Circle might do (Thrask and Olivia.)
Will Anders' action protect life? If the revolution succeeds, yes. Malcolm Hawke's parenting proves that alternative means of mageling education are viable (Neither a mage!Hawke nor Bethany become raving abominations simply because they are
not locked up away from their family...)
We can ask ourselves if abominations will run amok and slaughter thousands of innocents if the Circle is abolished... but we don't really have a clear answer, at all. Meredith's sister was hidden away from the Circle and not given proper instruction, and most of the mages we see in-game who become abominations do so out of fear of being kidnapped, killed, having their hands cut off, etc.
If a mage has nothing to fear simply by being a mage, if they can be sent to a local school where they are taught to harness their skills safely and morally, if they are given the opportunity for emotional stability and growth, what happens then?
Tevinter, oddly enough is an argument
for such a system, and for mage freedom. Would great, noble families want scions of their familes turned into madmen and murderers? Would you breed such a dangerous trait into your line, only to see your heir slaughtered by his children? The fact that Tevinter nobility not only lives but
thrives under such a system rather implies that a mage taught privately and taught well is actually unlikely to lose control and accidentally slaughter innocents (whether they do it on purpose is another question entirely...X|)
Chasind witches manage to survive with magic running amok in their tribes, Merrill herself, while admitting that Keepers do occasionally go rogue, implies that it's a rare event and manageable under the current system of the Dalish; all of these societies manage just fine without locking up their mages as dangerous criminals.
Is the Chantry/Circle system a "grave public evil," or "a massive violation of the basic human rights of a whole population?"
I sincerely hope you don't need me to answer that for you.
Therefore, we have established that there is "just cause" for the mages to go to war against the system.
Next criterion!
[quote]
Comparative justice "While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as
Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.[/quote]
Is the injustice suffered by one party significantly outweighed the injustice suffered by the other? Based on the post I made here:
http://social.biowar...812/68#10453552 I say yes.
While I have sympathy for individuals
forced to become Templars, I have no sympathy at all for those who deliberately choose to join. Becoming a Templar, for many, is
optional; being locked up in the Tower, or made Tranquil, or beaten, or raped, or having your children taken away from you as a mage is
not. If you choose to join the Order and then later regret that you've become a lyrium addict who kills mages for a living, well, then I ask you, WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, GENIUS? AT LEAST YOU HAD A CHOICE.
And if a Templar-in-training runs away, does the Tower hunt him down and bring him back? Hell no. Even Samson says they "do nothing to keep you." You want to go, fine, go. Be a farmboy. Be a pickpocket. Be a mercenary. Become an apprentice shoemaker if you want. If a Templar-in-training doesn't like his lot, he can leave. And they know about the lyrium addiction before they take their vows, as Alistair is quite clearly proof. So if you stay for that, well, then you made your choice. I'll not weep for your "injustice."
So we have "comparative justice." Onto the next criterion!
[quote]
Competent authority "Only duly constituted public
authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key.
Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".[/quote]
Basically, this criterion says "If a political system allows for the division of opinion and the choosing of sides, then a just war is fought behind the duly appointed heads of each side." It's like allowing multiple political parties to "wage war" for a presidency.
But if you live in a one-party country, so to speak (like Thedas), where opposing viewpoints are crushed without a second thought (Don't like what Orsino preaches? Annul the Circle!) then there is no competent authority behind which to rally. Anders had no other faction with which to ally- he had to create his own.
Criterion not applicable in this case. Onto the next!
[quote]
Right intention "Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.[/quote]
The Ferelden/Free Marches mages weren't fighting to be better than the Templars or the everyday populace- they weren't fighting for material gain or political position (unlike the Tevinters.) They simply wanted to be EQUAL, and free to live as any other man. They wanted to be free from the suffering of the Circle.
We have "right intention." Next!
[quote]
Probability of success "Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;"[/quote]
The mage's cause is
not futile; banded together, I daresay they can win their freedom fairly easily. When the templars and governments no longer have access to healing magic, when their towers and fortifications fall before the elements, when the ground itself swallows their armies, they
must parlay for peace. Anders simply needed to unite them against the Templars; as per my linked post above, I state that blowing up the Chantry did so:
"Anders’ actions make it crystal-clear that he is the one to blame for the Chantry, the Circle was in no way responsible. But Meredith takes it out on them anyway, because the people will demand blood, and after all, they’re just mages, it’s not like they’re human, right? Keep in mind that the Circle is full of innocents, men, women, children, Bethany.
Anders reveals to all of the mages beyond a shadow of a doubt that they exist at the Templar’s sufferance, to be executed regardless of guilt or innocence. The Circle is a death sentence. Change and revolution won’t come from the outside- so he creates it on the inside, and pushes the Templars to reveal who they really, truly are- executioners."
So, we have "probability of success." Onward!
[quote]
Last resort "Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions."[/quote]Anders spent seven years trying to find an alternative. He spent seven years letting Orsino try the Circle route, and watched him fail so spectacularly that Meredith was going to annul the Circle even before the destruction of the Chantry. He spent seven years trying to get people to read his manifesto of mage rights, seven years of trying to let Hawke fix the problem, somehow.
Blowing up the Chantry was the last resort, and a highly successful one at that.
Ok, we have "last resort." Next!
[quote]
Proportionality "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the
jus in bello principle of proportionality."[/quote]A mage war will be painful in the short term (as were the casualties in Kirkwall from the Chantry explosion)- but in the long term, best-case scenario, it will result in freedom and justice for mages and mage families, in the integration of mages into society (allowing both mages and their templar cohorts to serve and protect the populace at large instead of hiding them away in Towers where they help no one.) It will end the prejudice of a thousand years and guarantee equal justice for everyone, regardless of their status as a mage or non-mage.
Another component of this criterion is the concept of acceptable losses, especially in regards to civilian casualties. To quote content from the following Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia....lian_casualties [quote]Many modern nations' views on the
ethics of civilian casualties align with the
Just War theory, which advocates a system of proportionality. An
act of war is deemed proportional in Just War theory if the overall destruction expected from the use of force is outweighed by the projected good to be achieved.
[5] This view is a war-adapted version of
utilitarianism, the moral system which advocates that the morally correct action is the one that does the most good.
However,
moral philosophers often contest this approach to war. Such theorists advocate
absolutism, which holds there are various ethical rules that are, as the name implies, absolute. One such rule is that non-combatants cannot be attacked because they are, by definition, not partaking in combat; to attack non-combatants anyway, regardless of the expected outcome, is to deny them
agency. Thus, by the absolutist view, only combatants can be attacked. The philosopher
Thomas Nagel advocates this abolutist rule in his essay
[6]War and Massacre.
Finally, the approach of
pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unjust. Pacifists sometimes extend
humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially
conscripts.[/quote]Whether or not you feel that Anders was justified really depends on whether you believe in utilitarianism, absolutism, or pacifism. If you believe that any civilian casualty is wrong, no matter what good comes about from it, then you are a moral absolutist and no doubt believe that Anders was wrong. If (like me, obviously) you are a believer in utilitarianism and proportionality, then you accept that some loss of civilian/innocent life is acceptable depending on the projected outcome and the benefit to be gained.
If blowing up the Chantry kills maybe a hundred people in the building itself and several thousand in Kirkwall (from fighting, looting, fires, debris, etc) is that loss justified if tens of thousands of innocent mages are saved in the present and future? If the integration of mages into society leads to the betterment of society (mages as village healers and protectors, saving lives) and so forth, and saves thousands of non-mage lives in the future, is it worth the cost in the present?
[quote]In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence). [/quote]Will the Mage-Templar War be a "just war?" That's an individual question and I can't answer it for you, and some of you will disagree with me no matter what. That's fine too- I don't expect to convince all of you. But that is why I, personally, believe Anders was justified in his actions.
Modifié par katiebour, 25 mars 2012 - 05:27 .
Retour en haut
It reminds of that South Park episode where their debating wheter they should change the town flag but the issue keeps getting delayed because numerous people can't make up their mind.
Deep and abiding fear of death or loss.
