472 réponses à ce sujet

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Here I think we arrive at the crux of the problem. If I'm not mistaken, in your analogy disease as it is being carried is supposed to represent merely the "potential" to become an abomination, which is as good as saying it is the magic in and of itself. This simply won't work because that is not how a real-life quarantine works - there must be at least one (or maybe two, come to think of it) abomination for it to work, i.e. when the disease has already manifested itself and has become a contagion, going by the analogy.

No, I disagree.  In RL the government (state and federal) has the power to isolate individuals and even geographic sections for much less.  Strictly speaking, they "quarantine" individuals who have merely been exposed or even have had a risk of being exposed, and "isolate" individuals who are known carriers, at least in US legal parlance, which just illustrates they actually do act to prevent harm rather than react to it as you're saying.  Moreover, I feel you're losing sight of this being a moral analogy rather than a descriptive analogy.  The point is analogize the morally salient features the situations present for (in this case) a rights theory; even if the law were different and was as you described, the point would remain about what is justifiable from a rights perspective (the "real-life quarantine" you describe could be defensibly strengthened under rights theories).

What you might be getting at is an issue of the degree of risk the carriers pose to others, but that's exactly why the analogy works so well.  People have stronger intuitions about when it's appropriate to have quarantines than they do in the relatively novel magic setting, but again, I'm not advocating for any particular conclusion regarding mage segregation, as you seem (or at least, might) be assuming.

Let's look at that more closely. There is a statistical ratio in there for the affected population subcategories. WR : MR : SR = 110 : 30 : 1 (where, with my own labels, WR = weak reaction, M = mild, and S = strong). Apparently there is no vaccine for this, at least for humans, so one who gets it doesn't become immune. So, at various stages in life, it is reasonable to assume that if he gets it again, there is no certaintly into which category he'd fall - it might depend on the potency, the "volume" of the pathogen, and so on and so forth. The point is that the populations you mention is a shifting one. Whereas for magic, it isn't. When one gets it, it's for life.

Incubation periods for WNV is different, at least I didn't see that it is "for life," which I'd think'd play a big role in deciding whether a quarantine approach would be considered "reasonable" by the "affected" population, and so on.

Point being this: according to you, where exactly are the lines to be drawn between this analogy between a real life disease and "potential" for becoming abominations, aka just one of the "cons" of having magic?

I'm not sure I understand why you went through the WNV numbers, as I never claimed it was my analogous disease.  I don't need a RL disease.  I'm not trying to make magic descriptively realistic, but rather to make an analogous moral hypothetical.  And if you'd clarify your last sentence, I'd appreciate it since I simply don't understand what you're asking.  What lines are you asking for - you want me to draw distinctions in what?

Well, not treatment, then. Let's discuss the reasonableness of the approach. Who decides? And why should all mages agree? I thought the whole thing with this deal was that, long ago, when Tevinter Imperium fell from its mighty position, with things like the Inquisition hunting mages, the common folk fearing magic, it was in everyone's best interests to have formed the Circles, and "confined" mages to it. The question is whether that is still as reasonable an approach. And whether some quarantines, aka some Circles, aren't pushing mages toward another disaster.

Are you asking me to use the analogy to draw conclusions about mage governance issues?  I mean, sure, someone could do so, but it's beside the point that there are morally analogous features in the two situations.  Saying the analogy holds for all moral questions pertaining to the two situations is a much stronger claim than I've made.  I think a person who felt that way would have to draw the exact same conclusions for the two situations.  I expect such a position would be viable in the sense of being coherent, and maybe even not too unusual from a moral perspective, but I don't need it for my simple claim that the disease analogy does not fail.

Yes, I know. I'm merely debating the applicability of the analog itself. We might in fact agree about how the Circles work - so it might be irrelevant for our discussion. But to me labeling magic as a disease has consequences, and some of which I think is bad. Which is the whole reason why I'd like to understand whether the analogy is really applicable.

I'm not one to smuggle connotations in with my denotations.  If you think merely labeling magic as a "disease" has (moral) consequences independent from specific moral issues, then I disagree.  And anyway I don't know any anology that would extend to all aspects of both analogues, even if it were desirable to have one, which I don't see a particular need for.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 02 octobre 2011 - 07:13 .

[phaonica]

That is the whole reason why a quarantine is formed. It's after the fact.

Why does a quarantine have to occur after the fact? Can a quarantine not be pre-emptive? Especially if you know that the only people who are "carriers" are mages?

[Drasynd]

phaonica wrote...

Why does a quarantine have to occur after the fact? Can a quarantine not be pre-emptive? Especially if you know that the only people who are "carriers" are mages?

It might be because the definition changes, ever heard of "Internment Camps", which is what the circles really are.

Modifié par Drasynd, 02 octobre 2011 - 07:49 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

No, I disagree.  In RL the government (state and federal) has the power to isolate individuals and even geographic sections for much less.  Strictly speaking, they "quarantine" individuals who have merely been exposed or even have had a risk of being exposed, and "isolate" individuals who are known carriers, at least in US legal parlance, which just illustrates they actually do act to prevent harm rather than react to it as you're saying.

All right. I'll grant you that one. Suspicion of harboring a disease, of being a carrier are at times used to quarantine people. But the aspect of timeframe is also involved - the quarantine isn't an indefinite one, as the cases of mage is, if we're to admit that they're all carriers. So the situations aren't equivalent. You're using the terms "carrier" and "disease" loosely without explaining what the equivalent of it on the other side is, or why they are equivalent.

Moreover, I feel you're losing sight of this being a moral analogy rather than a descriptive analogy.

I've asked this before, and I shall do so again. There is the pathogen, there is the carrier, and there is the contagion. What do these terms mean when applied to mages? Once we're done with this, we can move on to the term quarantine.

The point is analogize the morally salient features the situations present for (in this case) a rights theory; even if the law were different and was as you described, the point would remain about what is justifiable from a rights perspective (the "real-life quarantine" you describe could be defensibly strengthened under rights theories).

Mages being carriers (at least in the sense that you use it) hazards the rights of others to exist, admittedly. The question is where does such a quarantine stop being morally justifiable? The confinement is for life and to all posterity, is it not? Where is the equivalent of this in the real world?

And what are the morally salient features that you're trying to draw analogies over?

What you might be getting at is an issue of the degree of risk the carriers pose to others, but that's exactly why the analogy works so well.  People have stronger intuitions about when it's appropriate to have quarantines than they do in the relatively novel magic setting,

What does intuition have to do with it? I fail to understand. Intuition or suspicion might start a process, but it cannot sustain it. There are reasons why time limits are involved.

but again, I'm not advocating for any particular conclusion regarding mage segregation, as you seem (or at least, might) be assuming.

No, I'm specifically questioning the validity of your analogy. How is disease analogous to magic and how is quarantine analogous to Circles? And if the one can be defensible by means of some rights theory, how is the other one, too?

I'm not sure I understand why you went through the WNV numbers, as I never claimed it was my analogous disease.  I don't need a RL disease.

I perceived it as an example. I went ahead to see how it is not applicable as an analogy.

I'm not trying to make magic descriptively realistic, but rather to make an analogous moral hypothetical.

You'll need to get descpretive with this one. What are you talking about?

And if you'd clarify your last sentence, I'd appreciate it since I simply don't understand what you're asking.  What lines are you asking for - you want me to draw distinctions in what?

Okay, what you mean by disease and by the spread of the disease from a mage perspective.

Are you asking me to use the analogy to draw conclusions about mage governance issues?

No, for starters, we can clarify to each other what we understand by the terms I'm asking about.

I'm not one to smuggle connotations in with my denotations.  If you think merely labeling magic as a "disease" has (moral) consequences independent from specific moral issues, then I disagree.  And anyway I don't know any anology that would extend to all aspects of both analogues, even if it were desirable to have one, which I don't see a particular need for.

Let's see if magic can really be equated with disease. And quarantine with the Circles. These are terms coming across two different worlds, and so we'll need to be clear what is meant by each and then to judge whether there is any correspondence. And if there is any, if any such thing is morally defensible in one, we can look whether it is so in the other.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Drasynd wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Why does a quarantine have to occur after the fact? Can a quarantine not be pre-emptive? Especially if you know that the only people who are "carriers" are mages?

It might be because the definition changes, ever heard of "Internment Camps", which is what the circles really are.

Yes, well. Depends on how you look at it, but the part about the definition changing is accurate, I think. Although I admit that quarantines can be pre-emptive, there are still restrictions involved, mostly in terms of time limits. As far as I see it, applying the terms "disease carriers" and "quarantine" to the context of mages is misleading, and maybe even missing the point; because it ignores the other sides of what the mage confinement might represent.

EDIT: Typos...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:09 .

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
All right. I'll grant you that one. Suspicion of harboring a disease, of being a carrier are at times used to quarantine people. But the aspect of timeframe is also involved - the quarantine isn't an indefinite one, as the cases of mage is, if we're to admit that they're all carriers. So the situations aren't equivalent. You're using the terms "carrier" and "disease" loosely without explaining what the equivalent of it on the other side is, or why they are equivalent.

I agree you can't quarantine people indefinitely, in most circumstances, although looking at the regs, they're pretty open-ended.  In any case, barring some extreme emergency, eventually you have to test them and move them into isolation if they're diseased.  If you want to say that if there were a RL disease that was lifelong, and that we shouldn't quarantine/isolate its victims if we know it will be for their entire lives, that's fine to take as your stance, and I'm not going to disagree since that sort of specific stance is beside the point.  

What does intuition have to do with it? I fail to understand. Intuition or suspicion might start a process, but it cannot sustain it. There are reasons why time limits are involved.

Alright, I will take you up here.  Moral intuition is what animates moral judgment, and I agree it does so best when analyzed, as analogies can help to do.

No, I'm specifically questioning the validity of your analogy. How is disease analogous to magic and how is quarantine analogous to Circles? And if the one can be defensible by means of some rights theory, how is the other one, too?

As for the rest of your post, I'm beginning to question whether you're even being sincere.  Like this example - I've explained several times explicitly why a rights theorist could view them the same way, and you even channeled the explanation in a post you made to Addai.  I mean, you really can't figure out the analogy?  Even if there were some flaw with my specific example disease (as you clearly believe), you really believe it's impossible in principle to offer a better-tuned one?  Perhaps it would be more fruitful if you explained why you think so.  What specific feature of DA-magic is impossible to analogize to disease?

[phaonica]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Yes, well. Depends on how you look at it, but the part about the definition changing is accurate, I think. Although I admit that quarantines can be pre-emptive, there are still restrictions involved, mostly in terms of time limits. As far as I see it, applying the terms "disease carriers" and "quarantine" to the context of mages is misleading, and maybe even missing the point; because it ignores the other sides of what the mage confinement might represent.

EDIT: Typos...

Hm. I was thinking that mages being "carriers" referred to the way they seem to contract the "disease" significantly more than non mages, and can have the "disease" without showing symptoms for prolonged periods of time.

The "disease" might refer to the way that elements from the fade pass through mages far easier than they pass through non mages.

The "contagious" harm that could be done might take the form of either the mage becoming an abomination and attacking others or making others abominations, summoning demons, and so forth. An out of control fireball does harm, too. It doesn't necessarily need to be contageous, does it? just potentially harmful or fatal due to contact. According to the wiki, though, abominations do everything they can to create other abominations, and fire can spread to everything and everyone about it, so those instances might be considered "contagious."

[Drasynd]

I do have to question the "morality" of many here. Although using "disease" and "quarantine" is a good way of not handling the justification (or the lack there off) of the templars or the circles.

There is no judiciary or "oversight" into the handling off mages (there is oversight for templars but that's different). A mage is quilty by association aka being a mage.

A child that shows the first signs of magic, if not hidden, will be either taken to the circle or be killed (by the templars or the chantry's religous fanatics). The end result doesn't really matter, the new mage is either dead (good outcome) or loose all rights (as in, not a human or elven anymore) and become little more than animals or slaves.

Once in the circle, mage's are given enough training not to accidentally kill or hurt themselves or others and some training on handling the "dream realm" aka fade (depends on the circle in question, Kirkwall does a really bad job at this).

When they decide that the apprentice is ready (if they ever get this far), comes the three choises: harrowing, tranquility or death (basicly: at best 50/50 chance of death, death of personality or just plain old death). If the mage survives this, they get (most likely) proper training but are still imprisoned in the circle and still under the whims of the templars.

Most off them never see the outside world around them ever again (windows don't count). It's more likely that some of them will try to escape and just might die trying or are killed by the templars, some will take their own lives (suicide is a way to escape and more likely to succeed).

Off course if someone accuses a mage on BM, things get really interesting, any evidence of this does NOT have to be "real" or "accurate", suspicion alone is enough for tranquility or death (most templars seem to love killing mages anyway, so...). There should be a mage's prison but after DAO's mage origin, it doesn't seem to exist anymore.

And if a mage turns to BM, it shouldn't be a big surprise, treat people like monsters and quess what, they might actually become monsters (BM, abominations or maybe even worse).

To all the disease people, remember that you have to quarantine the town or village the mage came from. If it's a circle, that's in question you have to do the same to everyone in there, including the templars and when you have RoA'd it you should really kill all the templars that were in there as well, a strong demon should be able to take over a templar as easily as a mage (mage's just make better "real estate").
This "clean-up" also includes the knight-commander, after this you need new mages and templars to find all the "rift's" or "tear's" in the veil and hunt down all the non corporeal demons (I would be surprised if there are none).

PS. Have fun ripping this post to shreds, it's what people here seem to be qood at.

Modifié par Drasynd, 02 octobre 2011 - 10:41 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I agree you can't quarantine people indefinitely, in most circumstances, although looking at the regs, they're pretty open-ended.  In any case, barring some extreme emergency, eventually you have to test them and move them into isolation if they're diseased.  If you want to say that if there were a RL disease that was lifelong, and that we shouldn't quarantine/isolate its victims if we know it will be for their entire lives, that's fine to take as your stance, and I'm not going to disagree since that sort of specific stance is beside the point.

Since we don't have a precedent for something like this in the real world, we cannot really know what might happen. I personally think it'd not go down well, if a cure isn't discovered soon; which provides all the more incentive to discover a cure.

As for the rest of your post, I'm beginning to question whether you're even being sincere. Like this example - I've explained several times explicitly why a rights theorist could view them the same way, and you even channeled the explanation in a post you made to Addai.

I'm being insincere...? And this is based on what? My explanation here? Or on the elaboration I went into here? I suggest you re-read that and re-read whatever I've typed till now and let me know where I defended your analogical stance of applicability of what you refer to as "rights-based" theory to the context of mages. If I've done that I'll gladly admit to the error.

I mean, you really can't figure out the analogy? Even if there were some flaw with my specific example disease (as you clearly believe), you really believe it's impossible in principle to offer a better-tuned one?

There are several other ways of looking at what happens with the mage confinement in Thedas. There is no reason for me to get hung up on your "disease-quarantine" analogy. Quarantine in the real world proceeds in very specific ways, and whether it's after the fact or pre-emptive, it'll always lead to the release of the confined (if they survive) when they are found to be not infected or not disease ridden, or when a cure for what they have is found. There is no case of them, their children, and their grandchildren being confined to it for life. And disease similarly has some specific meaning.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful if you explained why you think so.  What specific feature of DA-magic is impossible to analogize to disease?

Fruitful to whom I wonder. Healing magic, death magic, blood magic, and so on and so forth. Take your pick. Not everything about magic is about turning into abominations. It's not for nothing that magic is considered a gift from the Maker.

[Dave of Canada]

Lifelong Quarantine does exist, I recall reading about a few cases before but I remember Mary Mallon. Unless I wasn't able to follow what you meant and you didn't imply we had no real world comparisons. (Though whether they exist today, I don't know)

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 octobre 2011 - 11:21 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lifelong Quarantine does exist, I recall reading about a few cases before but I remember Mary Mallon. Unless I wasn't able to follow what you meant and you didn't imply we had no real world comparisons. (Though whether they exist today, I don't know)

That's a good example (appears to be a sole one, actually, at least in recent times). But have a look into the details. It's interesting. Our society generally works around such things (with cures, I mean) because it knows that there is a thin line between permanent confinement and civil rights violations. My belief anyway.

Still my point would be that Mary was actively spreading the disease when she was confined, and was later arrested and re-confined because she changed back her profession to being a cook.

[MichaelFinnegan]

phaonica wrote...

Hm. I was thinking that mages being "carriers" referred to the way they seem to contract the "disease" significantly more than non mages, and can have the "disease" without showing symptoms for prolonged periods of time.

The "disease" might refer to the way that elements from the fade pass through mages far easier than they pass through non mages.

The "contagious" harm that could be done might take the form of either the mage becoming an abomination and attacking others or making others abominations, summoning demons, and so forth. An out of control fireball does harm, too. It doesn't necessarily need to be contageous, does it? just potentially harmful or fatal due to contact. According to the wiki, though, abominations do everything they can to create other abominations, and fire can spread to everything and everyone about it, so those instances might be considered "contagious."

I can admit that a mage turning into an abomination could be (vaguely) construed as a disease, which non-mages aren't susceptible to. And once an abomination is born, it could create more abominations or kill all the people in the vicinity (common folk, and to an extent templars, and so on), which could lead us to think of it as being contageous. I wouldn't look at it this way, but I can respect you looking at it like that.

Somehow finding it hard to put this into words: Now the question really is whether we can think that the mages having magic (one of the side effects of which is that they attract demons, and might at some undetermined point in the future turn into abominations, which is impossible to tell), as you've defined it, to have a communicable disease from birth. And whether on this basis alone we can say that what happens with them being confined in the Circle Towers for life is really analogous to how instances of quarantine work in real life. I'm simply objecting to both these notions.

[DKJaigen]

What an idiotic analogy. Mages are not "diseased" . Making this entire conversation pointless

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Since we don't have a precedent for something like this in the real world, we cannot really know what might happen. I personally think it'd not go down well, if a cure isn't discovered soon; which provides all the more incentive to discover a cure.

I agree it probably wouldn't go down well, but that's not relevant unless you're saying it would go down well (in some morally relevant way) on one side and not the other ("side" being disease vs. magic), since it's only then that the issue might impugn the analogy.

I'm being insincere...? And this is based on what? My explanation here? Or on the elaboration I went into here? I suggest you re-read that and re-read whatever I've typed till now and let me know where I defended your analogical stance of applicability of what you refer to as "rights-based" theory to the context of mages. If I've done that I'll gladly admit to the error.

I never said you defended my analogy.  You used it to argue against the RoA.  In the first link, you wrote, "The point is that there might not even be a single person with manifestations of disease (in this case of being an abomination, or even a mind-controlling blood mage) in the said population. There is simply the "risk" of that existing - not a certainty."  You thought an analogy between manifesting disease and abominations was reasonable, just as I drew up in my analogy.  It illustrates my position that an analogy to disease is possible, a position you nonetheless deny.  And besides, several of your questions read as though I wrote my analogy in Martian. 

There are several other ways of looking at what happens with the mage confinement in Thedas.

I never claimed the analogy would hold for all moral theories.  What analogy for any situation could?  Different moral theories or "ways of looking" view different facts as morally salient.

 There is no reason for me to get hung up on your "disease-quarantine" analogy. Quarantine in the real world proceeds in very specific ways, and whether it's after the fact or pre-emptive, it'll always lead to the release of the confined (if they survive) when they are found to be not infected or not disease ridden, or when a cure for what they have is found. There is no case of them, their children, and their grandchildren being confined to it for life. And disease similarly has some specific meaning.

I agree, people are released when they are cured.  But it's unrealistic to say authorities would never hold someone for life - regardless of Mary Mallon's particulars.  And even beside the legal reality is the moral issue.  If you want to adopt a moral theory that would say the (non-willful) Mallons of the world should be released, that's perfectly fine, but I don't see how that ties into our disagreement over the viability of the analogy.

Fruitful to whom I wonder. Healing magic, death magic, blood magic, and so on and so forth. Take your pick. Not everything about magic is about turning into abominations. It's not for nothing that magic is considered a gift from the Maker.

I'd agree healing magic could factor into, say, a utilitarian calculus if it were sufficiently leveraged, but I hadn't discussed the analogy in the context of any consequentialist theory.  Death and blood magic would seem to raise rights issues all the more pressingly.  But I also want to discuss:

Somehow finding it hard to put this into words: Now the question really is whether we can think that the mages having magic (one of the side effects of which is that they attract demons, and might at some undetermined point in the future turn into abominations, which is impossible to tell), as you've defined it, to have a communicable disease from birth. And whether on this basis alone we can say that what happens with them being confined in the Circle Towers for life is really analogous to how instances of quarantine work in real life. I'm simply objecting to both these notions.

Perhaps it's here that we have the issue.  The analogy between quarantine-able diseases and magic does not necessarily entail an analogy b/w quarantines and Circles.  You seem to be assuming I or phaonica have made that leap, but from what I see neither of us have.  Whether Circles are morally justifiable because quarantines are is a normative issue, but the disease-mage analogy isn't dispositive of it on its own as it takes a moral theory.  Maybe the Circles are too badly governed, or maybe b/c mages are trainable that's analogous to an ongoing treatment.  My whole point originally was that IanPolaris' original claim that no analogy was possible was objectively incorrect.  The analogy is possible because there exists moral theory(ies) that view the two situations as sharing morally salient features.  If someone disagrees with that then they to go through every moral theory and show that the two situations don't.  Really if Ian had simply offered a more measured statement such as "The analogy is not relevant to our disagreement," or "I don't view the two situations as analogous for the moral theory/ies we're discussing," there would have been no need to jump in.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I agree it probably wouldn't go down well, but that's not relevant unless you're saying it would go down well (in some morally relevant way) on one side and not the other ("side" being disease vs. magic), since it's only then that the issue might impugn the analogy.

Agreed. The point about it not going down well was my own personal assessment.

I never said you defended my analogy.  You used it to argue against the RoA.  In the first link, you wrote, "The point is that there might not even be a single person with manifestations of disease (in this case of being an abomination, or even a mind-controlling blood mage) in the said population. There is simply the "risk" of that existing - not a certainty."  You thought an analogy between manifesting disease and abominations was reasonable, just as I drew up in my analogy.  It illustrates my position that an analogy to disease is possible, a position you nonetheless deny.

Let me state clearly what it is that I deny. I deny the position that the potential for becoming an abomination is the same as being an abomination. Or that magic in general is somehow to be construed as analogous to disease. Beyond that it is as I answered Phaonica above.

And besides, several of your questions read as though I wrote my analogy in Martian.

You think so? I'f asked for clarification about what it is you're comapring to the disease here. Which was my very first post. If you'd said it is just an abomianation, it'd have sufficed. But you haven't yet answered the question. Only now you seem to be alluding to it.

I never claimed the analogy would hold for all moral theories.  What analogy for any situation could?  Different moral theories or "ways of looking" view different facts as morally salient.

True, but then what comes out of this analogy? Since we seem to have agreed that an abomination could be construed as a disease, what then? Where do we take it from here? Or was it merely to show that such an analogy is possible?

I agree, people are released when they are cured.  But it's unrealistic to say authorities would never hold someone for life - regardless of Mary Mallon's particulars.  And even beside the legal reality is the moral issue.  If you want to adopt a moral theory that would say the (non-willful) Mallons of the world should be released, that's perfectly fine, but I don't see how that ties into our disagreement over the viability of the analogy.

Ah, no. I tend to avoid going into declaring what society as a whole ought to do. I'm more of a consequentialist, if that's what you'd like to call it. Expecting to imprison someone for life (for whatever reason) and still hoping for cooperation doesn't seem to work well in practice. I was trying to argue this with Addai during my initial posts.

I'd agree healing magic could factor into, say, a utilitarian calculus if it were sufficiently leveraged, but I hadn't discussed the analogy in the context of any consequentialist theory.

That was just to highlight that for me disease does not correspond to magic, in general. Looking at magic as some kind of an inborn disease is a skewed perception at best because there are other positive or negative aspects to magic. Being prone to demons is just one of the many aspects of being a mage.

Death and blood magic would seem to raise rights issues all the more pressingly.

Depends entirely on what use they're put to. But I think we need to be careful about applying "rights" to the DA world. It does not necessarily correspond to how we view it in our world.

Perhaps it's here that we have the issue.  The analogy between quarantine-able diseases and magic does not necessarily entail an analogy b/w quarantines and Circles.  You seem to be assuming I or phaonica have made that leap, but from what I see neither of us have.

I didn't think Phaonica made that leap, but just you, which on further thought could have been a mistake on my part. I was merely clarifying that the issue she was trying to debate with me was taken out of context.

Whether Circles are morally justifiable because quarantines are is a normative issue, but the disease-mage analogy isn't dispositive of it on its own as it takes a moral theory.  Maybe the Circles are too badly governed, or maybe b/c mages are trainable that's analogous to an ongoing treatment.  My whole point originally was that IanPolaris' original claim that no analogy was possible was objectively incorrect.  The analogy is possible because there exists moral theory(ies) that view the two situations as sharing morally salient features.  If someone disagrees with that then they to go through every moral theory and show that the two situations don't.  Really if Ian had simply offered a more measured statement such as "The analogy is not relevant to our disagreement," or "I don't view the two situations as analogous for the moral theory/ies we're discussing," there would have been no need to jump in.

Right, then.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Interesting quote from DA2...

"There was a time when the Order's rules could be interpreted to suit the situation."

[Drasynd]

Hmmm.. That's what Tobrius said about Ser Maurevar Carver, the templar that allowed Malcolm Hawke to leave Kirkwall. It's a shame that there aren't more like him.

[DPSSOC]

Actually I think that particular line was Cullen. Tobrius' line was, "Order is not served by caging the best of us." or something to that effect if memory serves.

[Dave of Canada]

It does belong to Tobrius, he says it when referring to how Carver (the Templar) released Malcolm Hawke from the Circle.

[Addai]

Drasynd wrote...

I do have to question the "morality" of many here. Although using "disease" and "quarantine" is a good way of not handling the justification (or the lack there off) of the templars or the circles.

Oh great, another one.  Do we need to explain that this is a game?

There is no judiciary or "oversight" into the handling off mages (there is oversight for templars but that's different). A mage is quilty by association aka being a mage.

Not true.  You may not like how they run things, but the Chantry acts as arbiter and the Circle system is bound by a code of laws.

To all the disease people, remember that you have to quarantine the town or village the mage came from. If it's a circle, that's in question you have to do the same to everyone in there, including the templars and when you have RoA'd it you should really kill all the templars that were in there as well, a strong demon should be able to take over a templar as easily as a mage (mage's just make better "real estate").

That's essentially what Greagoir did when he confined both his templars and the mages in.  Afterward the surviving templars are not killed, which is indeed hypocritical, but the concept still applies- the Circles exist as a way to protect the many from the few.  It's not simply a matter of one ethnicity picking on another for no reason.  If people don't acknowledge that there is a real threat in a mage, that's when these discussions get ridiculous.

[Addai]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

That was just to highlight that for me disease does not correspond to magic, in general. Looking at magic as some kind of an inborn disease is a skewed perception at best because there are other positive or negative aspects to magic. Being prone to demons is just one of the many aspects of being a mage.

And let me reiterate that I brought up the idea of quarantine not to suggest magic is a disease, but to make a comparison between the moral justification of killing an entire limited population even if the individuals involved aren't personally "guilty."  Others have taken it off on different tangents, which IMO isn't especially helpful.  For one thing, in my analogy, the reason for "quarantine" is not simply being a mage but being in a population deemed too far gone to safely be allowed to live.

I didn't address your line of discussion about consent of the quarantined because to me that's irrelevant. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Drasynd wrote...

Hmmm.. That's what Tobrius said about Ser Maurevar Carver, the templar that allowed Malcolm Hawke to leave Kirkwall. It's a shame that there aren't more like him.

The implication is that there used to be more like him. 

[Drasynd]

Addai67 wrote...

Oh great, another one.  Do we need to explain that this is a game?

(sarcasm) This is game?? Really!! (/sarcasm) No kidding!!! Tell me something I DON'T KNOW.

Not true.  You may not like how they run things, but the Chantry acts as
arbiter and the Circle system is bound by a code of laws.

Chantry's acts are dictated by religous texts and beliefs, that are more or less ancient and out of date.
The templars are also part of the chantry so they are a religious order of knights.
Also taking into account some of the events in DA2, their "code of laws" aren't worth the paper it's written on, so you could say the whole system is flawed.
It should also be considered that some or many templars are on a "power trip", fueled by the fact that they can get away with anything, as long as they don't help mages. If the chantry acts as a arbiter their doing a really bad job.

That's essentially what Greagoir did when he confined both his templars and the mages in.  Afterward the surviving templars are not killed, which is indeed hypocritical, but the concept still applies- the Circles exist as a way to protect the many from the few.  It's not simply a matter of one ethnicity picking on another for no reason.  If people don't acknowledge that there is a real threat in a mage, that's when these discussions get ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but there's danger in every noble that get's  "delusions of grandeur" and you don't see them locked away pre-emptively. If you really want to see danger in large scale, then look no further then your precious chantry, it has a history of questionable acts to drive it's own goals including multiple Exalted Marches (crusades).

Also it should be noted that anyone trained in the "art of war" pose a bigger danger then most mages (all are penalized for the acts of one or few, if you're a mage that is). So the circle is based on the possibility that something might happen.

And in DAO, it becomes clear that the circles "protect the few from the many", this is due to the fact that the chantry teaches most people to hate and fear the mages, for the acts of the Magisters of  old (and they didn't even change it in any way, Tevinter's back to their old ways).

Modifié par Drasynd, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:02 .

[DPSSOC]

Drasynd wrote...

I do have to question the "morality" of many here. Although using "disease" and "quarantine" is a good way of not handling the justification (or the lack there off) of the templars or the circles.

You don't really need to try to justify the Templars and the Circles though (in theory).  Mages are individuals capable of levels of destruction that can't be matched.  Explosives may be comparable to fireballs but there is no device or tool that will allow you to call lightning from the sky, summon firece winds, or freeze men solid.  No non-mage can match the destructive output of a mage and it's even difficult for organized groups to match.

This isn't to address the possibility of mages going bad, any man can get it into their heads to do harm and the scope of harm is limited only by their means, but what mages can do by accident if not properly trained.  So you need an academy, a place where young mages can learn to master their gifts before they become powerful enough that their ignorance is overly dangerous.

You also need a fortress to protect mages from the common people's fear.  People fear the unknown and some, though not all, will respond to this fear violently since the easiest way to rid yourself of fear is to eliminate the source (afraid of the dark? turn on a light).  There are also issues of jealousy and hatred for those far more capable than the common man can ever hope to be.  Regardless some people are going to want to hurt mages simply for being mages, that's never going to change.

There you have the justification for the Circle, you need a fortress where mages can learn (to protect the people) and where they themselves are kept out of the public reach (to protect the mages).

Now for the Templars we look to the mages who go bad.  As with everyone else mages need to be held to a code of rules that include the basics which apply to everyone as well as a few additions to cover their exceptional abilities.  Some or all of these rules are not going to sit well with every mage and you need to be able to enforce them and inflict punishment.  Now conventional guards could work but the numbers required to subdue and hold a single mage makes the idea unrealistic.  So you need a specially trained warrior, one who can counter a mages abilities and effectively hold them.

There we have the justification for the Templars.  Special people require special enforcers to ensure compliance with the rules.

The current goings on may not be justifiable, but the existence of the Templars and the Circles themselves is not only justified, it's necessary.

[Killjoy Cutter]

There's good reason to require training for mages.

There's good reason to have a force trained and dedicated to hunting rogue mages.

The problem is that the religious zealotry directed at the mages, the assumption of guilt, the guilt by association, the abuses, the constant pressure cooker atmosphere... the circles and the templars end up doing more harm than good.