If you took the time to read journal entries you'd realize that if he hadn't done that everybody would have died as the Darkspawn were going to use the tunnels as a way to attack the village.
Sacrifice the sick and dying to save the many? Sounds justifiable to me, especially when you are trying to survive an end of the world event like the blight.
Utilitarism was always painted in a way too negative light in our modern western society.
People saying he saved the town... It's like 3 huts and 8 NPCs!
How can drowning innocent people be considered 'morally grey'?!
I'm mostly on the fence, but a few reasons:
There really was no 'right' answer to this - save maybe taking what few people actually saw the writing on the wall and leaving the town behind, arming those left with what they could before the darkspawn broke through and killed the men before dragging off the women to become broodmothers. Even then people would be calling him callous for that.
Utilitarism was always painted in a way to negative light in our modern western society.
Letting everybody die just to uphold some petty moral code when you have the option to save the majority of those people is completely asinine. It's like Commander Shepard picking the refuse ending.
Letting everybody die just to uphold some petty moral code when you have the option to save the majority of those people is completely asinine. It's like Commander Shepard picking the refuse ending.
Utilitarism doesn't apply when you can save all/most anyways (or rather, that would then be the utilitarist option anyways). I haven't read the Codex entry, but the fellow poster made it sound like it was the right call.
edit: Twas even you. Now you got me confused a little.
Utilitarism doesn't apply when you can save all/most anyways (or rather, that would then be the utilitarist option anyways). I haven't read the Codex entry, but the fellow poster made it sound like it was the right call.
edit: Twas even you. Now you got me confused a little.
I wasn't really answering you're statement, I was more adding in my thoughts that not having a utilitarist mindset in such a situation is incredibly stupid.
The mayor died for his deed. His reasons were not entirely unsound, but deeds like that cannot have any other punishment lest they be done but for the gravest reasons and as a final resort.
It was a tough call for me. On the one hand, the only reason the mayor was forced to make that hard call is because apparently remaining in a tiny little village rather than fleeing to safety was somehow deemed the smart course of action. Even if you assume the village was bigger at the time, compare the size of Old Crestwood to Lothering. Roughly the same, and likely to have had a similar population density. The difference being that a lot of the people in Lothering were smart enough to flee, and had they had a little more time most of the Lothering citizens likely would have survived because they made the choice to gtfo. Mind you, I understand it can be tough to leave what was likely the only home they'd ever known, but when the other option is let the Blight overtake them, well... He also could have simply refused to allow Blight refugees to stay. Not a wonderful choice either, but less morally grey than what he ended up with.
Having said that, you can't change the past. I remember reading some old adage somewhere, something like "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want". It was incredibly dumb to stay where they were instead of fleeing to safety, and it was incredibly dumb to take in Blight refugees at all knowing what it does to people, but once those decisions were made they were done and couldn't be unmade. So the options were to sit back and agonize while the sickness spread or make a monstrous choice to save the most lives.
Ultimately, I exiled him. I couldn't in good conscience execute him for trying to make the best of the crappy situation, even if it was partially of their own making.
Actually drowning isn't all that bad of a death. Mainly because you fall unconscious before dying. So you kind of just "fall asleep". The thing that actually kills you when you drown is not being able to remove CO2 from your blood. Pressure too if you are too fall below sea level you have to be quite far down. The scary thing is knowing you are going to die. Fire now that I wouldn't want to die from..
How many times have you actually drowned? Having almost drowned myself i can assure you it doesn't feel pleasant and the bit just before passing out is not peaceful or calm or 'meh' it's painful, disorientating. uncomfortable and panic stricken.
Yeah it isn't so much painful as it is scary. That's why it is considered a bad death, but who really isn't scared to die? Panic and being scared par for the course. The reason we drown is because we can't remove CO2 and other waste from our blood so we eventually die (lack of O2 doesn't help either, but you'd be surprised at how long you can be deprived of that). But you will generally fall unconscious before you get to that stage especially if you panic and inhale water.
As someone who has nearly drowned due to a fun game that quickly went out of control, it does hurt. Your lungs scream and burn for oxygen. There is no other way to describe it. And when your lungs start screaming, you start panicking. You madly thrash trying to break free which frequently just makes the situation worse.
He may have been justified, but he lied about what had happened and blamed the darkspawn (he said that the DS had messed with the controls and killed everyone). He's a criminal, a murderer and chose to lie about it and keep his position of power. I killed him.
I killed him as well. If he was truly repentant he wouldn't have lied nor would he have bolted for it.
Obviously almost none of you understands Utilitarism.
I think exile or arrest.......
I just can't choose the kill option
I gave him to Denerim. He did not act against the Inquisition, did not impede the quest to close the breach or stop the Elder One, and his crime predated the formation of the organization. This was clearly a Ferelden issue, not an Inquisition one.
Obviously almost none of you understands Utilitarism.
Or they just disagree with the conclusion Utilitarianism comes to. Doesn't mean they don't understand it.
Made him join the wardens.
I'm trying to be big on the whole repurpose your enemy thing.
Eh I exile him.
I see how he had to do it but at the same time, lying about it for years? not cool.
Or they just disagree with the conclusion Utilitarianism comes to. Doesn't mean they don't understand it.
One could argue that understanding it means appreciating it.
Look, it's easy to condemn him from the sidelines. However, when you're a leader, an uncurable plague is sweeping your village, and you have the opportunity to stop it by killing the infected and those still living with them... I would have flooded Crestwood too. The only alternative would be to quarantine the area, and wait for them to die from the taint. The problem with that is it's no mercy. The taint is an incredibly slow and painful death... FOR MEN. For women, the taint turns you into a darkspawn-producing broodmother. So, the quarantine will eventually fall, releasing darkspawn to slaughter the rest of Crestwood. Even if there are no broodmothers, the slightest chance of the quarantine failing makes it all for naught.
It is not justice to execute a man for doing the best he could having been placed in a terrible position.
One could argue that understanding it means appreciating it.
Which still doesn't mean you have to agree with every conclusion a given ethical system comes to. You can understand how an ethical system works and disagree with it's conclusion about a given situation. For instance, Kantianism would come to the conclusion that the mayor was wrong for drowning the refugees, as he used those people as a means to the end of saving the village. I disagree with that conclusion, but that does not mean I don't understand how it's ethical system works.
Which still doesn't mean you have to agree with every conclusion a given ethical system comes to. You can understand how an ethical system works and disagree with it's conclusion about a given situation. For instance, Kantianism would come to the conclusion that the mayor was wrong for drowning the refugees, as he used those people as a means to the end of saving the village. I disagree with that conclusion, but that does not mean I don't understand how it's ethical system works.
Fair point, but how can one not appreciate a moral code that puts the needs of many/more over those of the few/fewer, while at the same time trying to find a balance which benefits everyone, except for extreme situations of course, in which the few needs sacrificing if that means saving the many contrary to losing all anyways.
That's why I said, disagreeing with such moral code, is just ****ing dumb or not understanding it.
Retour en haut
