885 réponses à ce sujet

[Maconbar]

Most instances of societally approved cannabalism involve the ingestion of outsiders/enemies of the societal grouping. Historically in many societies killing your tribe's/country's enemies was not considered wrong per se. So killing or raiding your enemies is commonly lauded. Killing members of your own social group/tribe not so much.

[Creature 1]

Sialater wrote...
Sorry, Jonas Salk was probably one of the more valuable people on the planet during his day.

It's a dangerous precedent to define human worth in terms of utility, and an offense against human dignity. 

[Sialater]

Creature 1 wrote...

Sialater wrote...
Sorry, Jonas Salk was probably one of the more valuable people on the planet during his day.

It's a dangerous precedent to define human worth in terms of utility, and an offense against human dignity. 

Well, "A" I'm not a big believer in "Dignity."


"B" Utility is all we've got.

[bzombo]

The Angry One wrote...

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

The villagers are not a part of your mission as a Grey Warden. Just as Lothering was not important to the local bann, Morrigan feels that Redcliffe Village is not important to the war effort. And she is technically correct, though the information you get at the time is pretty muddy. Natural reaction in my book.

That's my take.

Redcliffe village is right outside the castle, it could be a source of extra bodies and morale to the war effort.
Even if not, Teagan is still someone worth having on side for various reasons, and there's no immediate way into the castle. Morrigan is just being an idiot.

morrigan has shown since the second you get her that she all about survival of the fittest and she could care less about the commoners who won't be fighting anyway. the people to help are in the castle. saving useless commoners is something she always complains about. her thinking is pretty much about getting the armies and that's it. any unimportant quests she hates. my 2nd playthrough i'm a mage, so i've removed my need of morrigan. she's too complicated to bother with.

[Rainen89]

Really? Is it? We do it all the time, I also think it's horrible, but we still do it. Would you rather save the little kid or the old elderly man from death, if you can only save one?

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...

Because if it's honestly your life or theirs, self preservation makes you live if that means killing so be it. I'm not saying it's better I'm saying it's not good, or evil it's gray and chaotic. I'm not saying it's okay, but it does not make someone evil.

Also if it's your life I doubt you hold some stranger with more wealth than you equal to your own.

What you hold does not matter, what is true is what matters.  You can't quantify the inherent value of a human any more than you can quantify the inherent value of a bacterium or water molecule.  All have equal inherent worth. 

Saying it's ok to kill someone who has not harmed you for the sake of saving your own life is a negation of any idea of human value, and cuts both ways--if it is ok for you to harm someone without cause, it's equally ok for another person to exploit or abuse you in any way they like.  Not only is this conclusion basically wrong, it also has very bad implications for civilization in general.  Yes, I would say that that mindset is evil. 

[Creature 1]

Sialater wrote...
Well, "A" I'm not a big believer in "Dignity."

"B" Utility is all we've got.

Where are you from???  There aren't many people who flatly deny the existence of human rights.  Maybe we should put you in a zoo so everyone can marvel. 

[Rainen89]

[quote]Creature 1 wrote...

[Also if it's your life I doubt you hold some stranger with more wealth than you equal to your own. [/quote]
What you hold does not matter, what is true is what matters.  You can't quantify the inherent value of a human any more than you can quantify the inherent value of a bacterium or water molecule.  All have equal inherent worth. 

Saying it's ok to kill someone who has not harmed you for the sake of saving your own life is a negation of any idea of human value, and cuts both ways--if it is ok for you to harm someone without cause, it's equally ok for another person to exploit or abuse you in any way they like.  Not only is this conclusion basically wrong, it also has very bad implications for civilization in general.  Yes, I would say that that mindset is evil. 
[/quote]

Is it evil to want to keep living? No they haven't harmed me in any way but in this scenario I also really don't want to die, I want to keep on living if that means I have to kill, then so be it.  You can act like it's wrong and has horrible implications for people in general, and it does. That aside however, very few people would just give up because that'd be wrong. I'd also consider it wrong for me to die while I did nothing. Bacterium or water molecule is irrelevent because it doesn't hold the same value as a person. Nor do animals for that matter, are you burying all the cattle you just ate to keep living because you need food? 

You can hate it all you like but you stratify life all the time, and your righteous paladin character does in the game. You killed abominations, people that were just exactly like connor and you didn't even feel bad about it. It's no different.

Modifié par Rainen89, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:39 .

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...

Really? Is it? We do it all the time, I also think it's horrible, but we still do it. Would you rather save the little kid or the old elderly man from death, if you can only save one?

First of all, I have never run into a situation where I had to choose to kill sone person or another, or save one person or another.  I don't think most people do.  

Second, in situations where rationing is required, save the person with the most to gain, and sacrifice the person with the least to lose--i.e., give the liver to the kid. 

[Sialater]

Creature 1 wrote...

Sialater wrote...
Well, "A" I'm not a big believer in "Dignity."

"B" Utility is all we've got.

Where are you from???  There aren't many people who flatly deny the existence of human rights.  Maybe we should put you in a zoo so everyone can marvel. 

Ah, and there's the hypocrisy of the "inherent human's rights" crowd.  If I disagree with you, I'm automatically less than human.

[Sialater]

Creature 1 wrote...

Rainen89 wrote...

Really? Is it? We do it all the time, I also think it's horrible, but we still do it. Would you rather save the little kid or the old elderly man from death, if you can only save one?

First of all, I have never run into a situation where I had to choose to kill sone person or another, or save one person or another.  I don't think most people do.  

Second, in situations where rationing is required, save the person with the most to gain, and sacrifice the person with the least to lose--i.e., give the liver to the kid. 

And BAM!  You just assigned a value to a human life.

[Rainen89]

Creature 1 wrote...

Rainen89 wrote...

Really? Is it? We do it all the time, I also think it's horrible, but we still do it. Would you rather save the little kid or the old elderly man from death, if you can only save one?

First of all, I have never run into a situation where I had to choose to kill sone person or another, or save one person or another.  I don't think most people do.  

Second, in situations where rationing is required, save the person with the most to gain, and sacrifice the person with the least to lose--i.e., give the liver to the kid. 

By doing that you're stratifying life. You're saying this kid is more important because of X, not because he's better, hell the kid could've grown up to be a mass murderer for all you know, you stratify life. Which you just said is horrible thing to do and shouldn't be done. By saying this kid should live, you say he's more important.

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...
Is it evil to want to keep living? No they haven't harmed me in any way but in this scenario I also really don't want to die, I want to keep on living if that means I have to kill, then so be it.  You can act like it's wrong and has horrible implications for people in general, and it does. That aside however, very few people would just give up because that'd be wrong. I'd also consider it wrong for me to die while I did nothing. Bacterium or water molecule is irrelevent because it doesn't hold the same value as a person. Nor do animals for that matter, are you burying all the cattle you just ate to keep living because you need food? 

That's confusing, you say that people are more valuable than animals or inanimate objects, yet you also say that you should have the right to kill them when you want.  You don't find this position the least bit contradictory? 

You do understand that if you are saying that another person has no value, you are saying you yourself have no value? 

Animals are not moral agents, so morality does not require we treat them the same way as we do humans.  But you are treating humans as if they were animals themselves--if you're starving, kill and eat your neighbor's dog or kill and eat your neighbor, doesn't seem to be much difference from your point of view. 

[Rainen89]

Yes I'm aware and I accept it. You don't have the right to kill, no one does, you have the right to live. Living by practice requires death, I hate to say it. Animals are bound by morals, you really think people value cattle more than they value dogs? Cats? Seriously you slaughter them for food no one bats an eye, no one really cares. You kill a dog, you go to jail. Right, that's a situaton with no moral or ethical implications.

[FireDragon076]

Very easy way to see that yes, Captain Useless (Morrigan) is indeed chaotic stupid.



Play a chaotic stupid character yourself, have Morrigan in party and be evil for the sake of being evil. This is what is called chaotic stupid. Poop in the urn of sacred ashes, punch old ladies, be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, over-compensate in every evil act and watch Morrigans approval rating, it will go up.

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...
By doing that you're stratifying life. You're saying this kid is more important because of X, not because he's better, hell the kid could've grown up to be a mass murderer for all you know, you stratify life. Which you just said is horrible thing to do and shouldn't be done. By saying this kid should live, you say he's more important.

No, the kid gets to live not because he is more useful to me, which is what was suggested above, but because sacrificing him deprives him of the most.  When considered impartially any person in that type of situation (either you, someone who has lived a long and full life and can expect only a few years more of life, or a young kid with his whole life ahead of him get to live) would choose the same. 

Of course as amply demonstrated, people have a tendency to overvalue themselves and undervalue others, which ends up negating human dignity entirely. 

[Rainen89]

The funny part is that having high approval rating with Morrigan and Sten is the easiest in the game. You can get max approval rating and give her maybe one gift by just talking with her.

[Dark83]

bzombo wrote...
she could care less about the commoners who won't be fighting anyway. the people to help are in the castle. saving useless commoners

Actually, the militia pack up to go to war. At least all the ones you can speak to do.

(PS: You mean "she couldn't care less", not that "she could care less", since that would imply she cares. )

[Rainen89]

Who says he has a more full life? The kid could die tomorrow for all you know, the man could be fifty with another forty years left, and the potential to do a lot of good. You think a kids life is more important because you're told to. People have a tendency to be selfish and think of themselves yes, it's that selfishness that lets people succeed. Selfishness (at least enough of it.) Is not a bad thing by any means nor is wanting to keep living.

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...

Yes I'm aware and I accept it. You don't have the right to kill, no one does, you have the right to live. Living by practice requires death, I hate to say it. Animals are bound by morals, you really think people value cattle more than they value dogs? Cats? Seriously you slaughter them for food no one bats an eye, no one really cares. You kill a dog, you go to jail. Right, that's a situaton with no moral or ethical implications.

You seem confused with what people tend to think and what actually is. 

Animals are not moral agents--they cannot tell right from wrong, they don't have the same understanding of others.  Even chimpanzees do not understand that other chimpanzees are individuals with their own internal states, and do not anticipate the needs of others unless asked for help.  This means that they can't truly choose to do right or wrong.  They also do not experience suffering the same way as we do.  Morality demands that we treat animals with humaneness based upon their ability to suffer.  Chimpanzees have a much higher capacity for suffering than fish, and fish more than ants, and ants more than bacteria. 

People, on the other hand, are able to understand that others are individuals as well, and unless broken on a fundamental level are able to distinguish between right and wrong and make choices.  Humans are moral agents. 

I am talking about *inherent value*, not *applied value*.  We apply value to everything based upon how useful it is to us.  But the universe was not made with us in mind to serve our needs, it exists outside of us and without regard to us.  We are products of impersonal natural processes, we have no value assigned to us beyond that which we assign ourselves--and that valuation is critically flawed by our self interest.  Rationally, no human is "better" or more valuable than any other person any more than one grain of sand is "better" than another.  This also means no human is less valuable than any other as well, though.  This is the basis for morality--since we all have the same inherent worth, we should treat others as we would like others to treat us.  If we deny the inherent value of another human, we deny our own value as well. 

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...

Who says he has a more full life? The kid could die tomorrow for all you know, the man could be fifty with another forty years left, and the potential to do a lot of good. You think a kids life is more important because you're told to. People have a tendency to be selfish and think of themselves yes, it's that selfishness that lets people succeed. Selfishness (at least enough of it.) Is not a bad thing by any means nor is wanting to keep living.

Statistically, the kid will live longer.  If we must choose A or B, we have to go by what is more likely because we cannot tell the future. 

Your alternative appears to be to let both people die. 

I don't see how it is more selfish to say that I would choose to save a child over saving my own life.  

Modifié par Creature 1, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:57 .

[Sialater]

Still putting a value on it.

[Rainen89]

Creature 1 wrote...

Animals are not moral agents--they cannot tell right from wrong, they don't have the same understanding of others.  Even chimpanzees do not understand that other chimpanzees are individuals with their own internal states, and do not anticipate the needs of others unless asked for help.  This means that they can't truly choose to do right or wrong.  They also do not experience suffering the same way as we do.  Morality demands that we treat animals with humaneness based upon their ability to suffer.  Chimpanzees have a much higher capacity for suffering than fish, and fish more than ants, and ants more than bacteria. 

They are to a certain extent, animals are capable of feeling and understanding. An animal who is harmed by a person will act differently towards a person, just because they don't speak english doesn't mean they don't feel. Morality, is a contradicting, you just contradicted yourself earlier by saying it's wrong to assign value to a life, when you just did, and you're doing now. The life of this animal is below me due to a gap in intelligence, therefore it's alright to treat it different and imorally.
People, on the other hand, are able to understand that others are individuals as well, and unless broken on a fundamental level are able to distinguish between right and wrong and make choices.  Humans are moral agents. 
Are they? We're disagreeing now aren't we, I would say that indicates a lack of understanding. Right and wrong is subjective. I'd say it's wrong to let yourself die when you could do something. You think it's wrong to do what it takes to keep living.
I am talking about *inherent value*, not *applied value*.  We apply value to everything based upon how useful it is to us.  But the universe was not made with us in mind to serve our needs, it exists outside of us and without regard to us.  We are products of impersonal natural processes, we have no value assigned to us beyond that which we assign ourselves--and that valuation is critically flawed by our self interest.  Rationally, no human is "better" or more valuable than any other person any more than one grain of sand is "better" than another.  This also means no human is less valuable than any other as well, though.  This is the basis for morality--since we all have the same inherent worth, we should treat others as we would like others to treat us.  If we deny the inherent value of another human, we deny our own value as well. 

Rationally people are better or more valuable, if you don't believe that you really don't observe culture at all. If people were not more valuable, better, more important we would not have the following.
Celebrities
90% (more, I don't know exact number I believe 96.) of wealth owned by less than 1% of the population of the US.
Treating children more important than the elderly.
Treating people who believe differently than us. (Throughout history the most recent bing a difference in religion. and difference in sexual preference.
Your basis of morality is not practical nor is it seen anywhere else. It would be great if it would. I would @#*@#ng love it if my gay friend had as much social worth than some straight guy but that is not the case. Nor is it the case elsewhere. Either way I really don't want to argue sociology right now or on this part of the forum and this is so far gone from the actual thread I believe we should stop. However, you're so wrong. People assign themselves higher than others all the time. It's not right but they do it.

Modifié par Rainen89, 21 décembre 2009 - 10:05 .

[Creature 1]

Sialater wrote...

Still putting a value on it.

Please expound.  I disagree, and your simply stating your opinion doesn't really help me evaluate your reasoning. 

[Rainen89]

Creature 1 wrote...

Your alternative appears to be to let both people die. 

I don't see how it is more selfish to say that I would choose to save a child over saving my own life.  

I didn't say it was selfish, you said "It's inhumane to assign a value to human life." My example was to show you, that you do.