Second: Going to quote dirtyfrank from a thread in Astrid's. The post inspired me to ask the question I've been itching to ask, and to do it here, on the D&D forums. Dirtyfrank is referring to Light Yagami, of Deathnote fame. You need not be a fan of the series to participate in this discussion. Read on.
dirtyfrank;17806164 wrote:
The problem with your point is, no action is truly good. Jack Vance mused about it, once (yes, the guy from whom Vancian Magic comes from), in his novel Blue World. The main character concluded that pure passivity (literally not doing anything) was the most likely moral act...and even then he wasn't sure about it. IMO, that's very, very true. For example, wouldn't assassinating a genocidal maniac with no possibility of redemption before he committed any of his heinous crimes be good, and wouldn't stopping the assassination be evil? This serves as a refutation of the position of inherent good or evil, in anything. From there on, the discussion changes to intent, reasons, and consequences, instead of acts. Makes more sense, doesn't it?
So if only intents can be good or evil, does this mean that, say, murdering innocents (as Light Yagami did) in order to save many more lives and stopping crime on a global scale, with the intention of doing so out of a genuine concern for human life (with genuine remorse for the casualties), is good?
So if only intents and consequences can be good or evil, does this mean that, say, murdering innocents (as Light Yagami did) in order to save many more lives and stopping crime on a global scale, with the intention of doing so out of a genuine concern for human life (with genuine remorse for the casualties), is good?
Fixed. You may have a heart of gold and do it wanting to help people, but pressing that button that says "nuclear apocalypse" is still evil. Yes, that is a massive exaggeration, but good acts done with good intent can still make a person evil because of the consequences.
Fixed. You may have a heart of gold and do it wanting to help people, but pressing that button that says "nuclear apocalypse" is still evil. Yes, that is a massive exaggeration, but good acts done with good intent can still make a person evil because of the consequences.
That's fine, but in this case the consequences are a few very intentionally murdered innocents, the virtual nonexistance of crime, and a LOT of lives saved.
Lets take the theft of money for the example.
Lets say that Mr. Wealthy has a lot of money. Good-Samaritan wants to help the poor and homeless so Good Samaritan takes* some of Mr. Wealthy's hard earned money. Good Samaritan then gives this money that is not his/her money and gives it to the poor and homeless that did not work for it.
Is Good Samaritan in the right or wrong?
Good Samaritan sees him/herself as a good person for helping out the poor. Doesn't see the taking of the money as bad because they feel that it is something that Mr. Wealthy should be doing anyways.
Mr. Wealthy has worked very hard for his money and feels that he can do with it as he chooses. Mr. Wealthy sees Good Samaritan as evil/bad because Good Samaritan took his money, that Good Samaritan doesn't work for, and then gives it to the poor which didn't work for it.
Maybe Mr. Wealthy is also a business owner and because of the taking of his money he has to make cut backs so that he doesn't lose it. With the loss of his money he must now cut paychecks and fire people. This means make more people poor and homeless. This of course would likely cause Good Samaritan to take more money.
Who is evil and who is good. Is having money evil and is taking it to help the poor good?
They are both a part of the same situation yet they have differing views on it. The thing that is different is their perspective of the situation. This is why I think a lot of what is classified as good and evil is completely based on ones view of the situation.
---------------------------------
*I'll just leave it at takes but you can think of it as being from one extreme to another. It could either be through identity theft or from the government forcefully taking it.
IE: what's "good" and "evil" will be shaped entirely by the society & it's leaders as a whole. while an individual might do something they believe is "good" depending on the public's reaction it might be considered an "evil" act if it strays to far from the common perception of "good".
while every individual will have their own barometer of what is acceptable and what is appalling it's up to society as a whole to determine if they are condemned or raised on a pedestal
as for the Light Yagami case? i find myself interested but not judgemental. if it were to actually happen, i personally don't know the exact details so i can't really come to a conclusion. yes it's great that criminals are being taken off the streets but i find it saddening that those officers had to die for someone's personal crusade. it's an interesting case to say the least.
I see the whole good or evil thing is a matter of perspective.
Lets take the theft of money for the example.
Lets say that Mr. Wealthy has a lot of money. Good-Samaritan wants to help the poor and homeless so Good Samaritan takes* some of Mr. Wealthy's hard earned money. Good Samaritan then gives this money that is not his/her money and gives it to the poor and homeless that did not work for it.
Is Good Samaritan in the right or wrong?
Good Samaritan sees him/herself as a good person for helping out the poor. Doesn't see the taking of the money as bad because they feel that it is something that Mr. Wealthy should be doing anyways.
Mr. Wealthy has worked very hard for his money and feels that he can do with it as he chooses. Mr. Wealthy sees Good Samaritan as evil/bad because Good Samaritan took his money, that Good Samaritan doesn't work for, and then gives it to the poor which didn't work for it.
Maybe Mr. Wealthy is also a business owner and because of the taking of his money he has to make cut backs so that he doesn't lose it. With the loss of his money he must now cut paychecks and fire people. This means make more people poor and homeless. This of course would likely cause Good Samaritan to take more money.
Who is evil and who is good. Is having money evil and is taking it to help the poor good?
They are both a part of the same situation yet they have differing views on it. The thing that is different is their perspective of the situation. This is why I think a lot of what is classified as good and evil is completely based on ones view of the situation.
---------------------------------
*I'll just leave it at takes but you can think of it as being from one extreme to another. It could either be through identity theft or from the government forcefully taking it.
I believe that this can be summed up into an old saying, which I find funny:
"A government that steals from Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul backing it."
As for Light, I say that yes, it is evil. Not only does it rob people from redemption, it gives a man power over his fellows that should be entrusted to a collective (not necessarily a government...see superheroes for an example of this). Plus, it's hugely inefficient. Either MkWhatever will have managed to give real mind control drugs and they'll be used to pacify people, or, in a fantastical setting, mass brainwash is much better. :P
If you approach a task which is inherently good (saving lives and stopping crimes) by doing something which is evil, but does not outweigh the good you are doing, are you committing evil?
The question is kinda faulty, since it already states that you are doing evil.
The big problem is, quite frankly, are intentions what makes things good, the ends that are being achieved or the action in itself?
The question is kinda faulty, since it already states that you are doing evil.
Are you saying that you cannot do good if you are also doing evil? Or are you saying that good and evil are not things that can be quantifiably measured?
Are you saying that you cannot do good if you are also doing evil? Or are you saying that good and evil are not things that can be quantifiably measured?
I meant to say that it is useless to ask if you are doing evil if you have already basically said that "you are doing evil to do good".
Yet, good and evil are, indeed, hard to quantifiably measure. I am opposed to the relativist view oxybe puts forth, because then you will have no real rules to find what is good and what is evil. It would be like thinking you are playing DnD, but the DM constantly changes the rule system to different ones used in other RPGs.
Its about a man who, in fear of influencing the world and being unable to predict the outcome of his actions, retreats and lives in complete seclusion. He explains his reasoning to his friend who then asks him how can he be so certain that he won't influence the world, considering that he leads a peculiar life and talks about strange things, and it is quite possible that his ideas form a core of a teaching in whose name great evils might be caused in the world. The man then asks should a man die to be certain he will not cause anything in the surrounding world, and he gets the final reply:
"Do be careful. For to die, means to commit an action so complex that its outcomes cannot even be imagined"
In other words, life is too complex to predict what outcome a particular action will have, and is it for the best or for the worst. There is no answer or scoring sheet to determine if something was good or bad, and even a same person could judge two similar actions in a vastly different way. And in such a world, the only way to stay consistent to yourself is to judge the moral value of each individual action immediately without trying to predict consequences or intentions.
The Light Yagami case is interesting, because no overreaching circumstance is forcing Light's hand. He chooses to murder innocents and deny accused murderers of due process in favor of an almost universal ban on crime and criminal violence. The world is a safer place and countless lives are spared.
Has Light done good in murdering innocents? Would it have been an evil act (or a cowardly or selfish one) not to commit murder against innocent policemen and women, when the consequence of choosing not to murder is the fall of the new world order, and a global resurgance of crimes, killings, and other injustices?
And in such a world, the only way to stay consistent to yourself is to judge the moral value of each individual action immediately without trying to predict consequences or intentions.
What if the consequences are clearly predictable? If I let these policemen live, I will go to jail now, because I am unarmed and helpless. If I go to jail, I can no longer prevent crime on a global scale, and countless lives are lost and ruined.
Therefore, in choosing to murder an innocent man I am making the good and right choice? Yes? No?
in choosing to murder an innocent man I am making the good and right choice?
If you judge every action based solely on it, than it is quite clearly not good.
Oh, and btw. If still not too late, I'd rather not discuss the "morality" of a cartoon that's well... Not really about morality.
Then again, there is evil that does come from nothing. Some people are mentally ill, and some are just, well, evil for no god damn reason.
But you can't just "kill them all and let god sort them out".
Here's another thought for you: The Nazi's didn't believe that what they were doing was wrong. Many/most truely believed that the Jewish people were responsible for many of the problems occuring in their country, in Europe, and indeed, around the world. They believed that exterminating the Jewish population would make the world a better place.
Most genocides are similar. The people doing the killing believe that the people they are killing need to be killed; that good will eventually come from the evil that they commit. Many of them don't even see the killing as evil since they see their victims as being the evil ones. If you kill someone who is evil, then you are doing good in the world.
I hate to bring in Bible references, since I don't really consider myself a Christian, or even religious (more spiritual, since I don't follow any particular faith), but "Hate the sin, not the sinner" is truely a good message. Killing someone who has killed doesn't make the world a better place. "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" and all that.
If you don't believe that, then just look at all the gang violence around the world. Gang members kill each other, back and forth, and nothing ever comes from it except more bloodshed. One side doesn't just say "Oh well, they killed my friends, I guess I'll just give up and go work at McDonalds."
The problem with Light is simple: Even if he killed every criminal in the world, instantly, there would always be more criminals. Sure, he'd save some lives in the short run, but you can't be god forever, because noone lives forever. His goal is not achievable.
It's like stealing from the rich, to give to the poor. Sure, the poor person now has some money, but unless you steal enough that they can live the rest of their lives on what you give them, they will eventually be poor again and need you to steal for them again. "If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime".
Robin Hood never won. It wasn't until the true king came back and retook the throne that the problems went away. Sure, he may have helped in the short run, but if he had died everything would have quickly gone back to the way it was; the rich would still have been rich and the poor would still have been poor. He wasn't addressing the problem, only the symptoms, the effects, of the problem.
It's like cold medication: cold medication just get's rid of the symptoms, it doesn't actually fight the cold. You have to wait until your body, your immune system, adapts and fights off the cold to get better. If you stop taking the medication, and your body hasn't fought off the cold yet, then the symptoms come back.
Light is just cold medication. By killing the criminals he is fighting the symptoms, not the cause. He may be doing good by preventing evil people from hurting good people, but the second he stops the symptoms will come back. The only way to be truely good is to fight the cause.
However, this is where is gets complicated and this is where my knowledge/reasoning runs out: How do you fight the cause of crime? How do you fight the cause of evil, and not just the symptoms of evil? I don't know.
But I do know that what Light is doing is putting a bandaid on a cut through an artery. Sure, he may slow down the blood loss for a while, but eventually the guy's going to die.
Is Light good? Is he evil? That I can't answer. But I do know that he's ultimately, for all his power, impotent.
If you judge every action based solely on it, than it is quite clearly not good.
Why isn't it? It's clear and subsequent consequence is great tragedy and evil.
Why isn't it? It's clear and subsequent consequence is great tragedy and evil.
Can you read??????
judge the moral value of each individual action immediately without trying to predict consequences or intentions.
If you judge every action based solely on it, than it is quite clearly not good.
+1.
Truly, I must learn how to express myself like that.
I am sorta reminded of a recent Japanese drama series I've watched called Shibatora - Baby-faced Detective. The main character "fights evil" mostly by redeeming the "villains" (some of them at least, and it can be argued for most of them that they were never truly evil, just that they saw things wrongly). Hence why I believe prisons shouldn't be just about punishment, but also about rehabilitation.
Is Light good? Is he evil? That I can't answer. But I do know that he's ultimately, for all his power, impotent.
Is he treating only the symptoms? After a single generation of human children are born into a world where being found guilty of a serious crime results in your nearly-immediate death, most crime would become only as commonplace as any other form of suicide. A new generation who never knew any other way of life will simply accept that crime equals death, and avoid it as one would any dangerous thing.
The price? A few murders.
Can you read??????
If you aren't looking at the immediate consequences of ANY action, then how can you judge if 'individual actions' are evil? What is wrong with stealing, if you disregard the consequences of stealing? Also: relax.
If you aren't looking at the immediate consequences of ANY action, then how can you judge if 'individual actions' are evil? What is wrong with stealing, if you disregard the consequences of stealing? Also: relax.
Seriously? Because you are taking away something that does not belong to you.
A moral value, what is "right" and what is "wrong" is hard-coded by the society and culture. If it wasn't for that... What would be with adultery? Consequences are you are happy, the guy's wife is happy, it reflects in the household, and, eventually, the guy himself is happy. So what is wrong with adultery and why do people go berserk when people realize someone is cheating on them and why do people feel bad after having cheated someone?
Seriously? Because you are taking away something that does not belong to you.
Without examining any of the consequences, as you have suggested that we do, what is wrong with taking something that doesn't belong to you? You have to draw the line somewhere. You have to examine (intended) consequences to tell the difference between good and evil.
I added that part about using your own filters for the following reason: the victor writes history. That means that the morality of certain acts is skewed by those that teach it to you. If Hitler won, we'd probably see the Holocaust as a good thing. Or, at the very least, something that needed to be done to ensure our happiness and survival. Kind of like the way history treated Native Americans and the Holocaust the Europeans subjected them to. Or the Turks denying genocidal practices against the Armenians to this very day. There's no standard of good or evil. It's far too complicated a subject for any of us to properly define.
Without examining any of the consequences, as you have suggested that we do, what is wrong with taking something that doesn't belong to you? You have to draw the line somewhere. You have to examine (intended) consequences to tell the difference between good and evil.
As I said originally, moral worth is something created by society, derived from its values. Hence the example about adultery which is agreed by everyone to be wrong, yet... well, doesn't have so horrible consequences, does it?
And the justification of actions by long-term possible consequences and intentions is well... Crap. First, its just a half-assed assessment (because, realistically, you cannot comprehend full outcomes of any action), and secondly, honestly, its just a way for people too petty to admit they've done something wrong to justify themselves.
As I said originally, moral worth is something created by society, derived from its values. Hence the example about adultery which is agreed by everyone to be wrong, yet... well, doesn't have so horrible consequences, does it?
Adultery usually has pretty detrimental consequences, for the exact same reasons that lying does. All relationships, romantic and otherwise, have to assume some level of trust to function. When the majority of your success and happiness (family, romance, children, history, wealth) is riding upon a relationship with someone in whom your trust is misplaced, the consequences will almost always be negative.
And the justification of actions by long-term possible consequences and intentions is well... Crap. First, its just a half-assed assessment (because, realistically, you cannot comprehend full outcomes of any action), and secondly, honestly, its just a way for people too petty to admit they've done something wrong to justify themselves.
But we aren't discussing long-term consequences. If I go to jail, all the murderers around the world stop dying. If that happens, crime rates return to normal.
Assuming that maintaining a virtually-nonexistant crime rate is a good thing, then the consequences of choosing to go to jail instead of kill an innocent man are obvious (death on a global scale) and short-term (because I go to jail now).
Is he treating only the symptoms? After a single generation of human children are born into a world where being found guilty of a serious crime results in your nearly-immediate death, most crime would become only as commonplace as any other form of suicide. A new generation who never knew any other way of life will simply accept that crime equals death, and avoid it as one would any dangerous thing.
The price? A few murders.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. People commit crimes for three basic reasons:
1) They don't think they'll get caught:
People who rob banks or sell drugs or whatever think they are smart enough, or have planned well enough, that they won't get caught. If these people thought they were going to get caught, they wouldn't commit the crime. Most criminals fall into this category.
Deterrents (like death) don't matter to this group, as they don't believe they will get caught. If they don't get caught, they never have to live with the consequences (or die with the consequences).
2) They don't care if they are caught:
A man who steals bread to feed his starving family doesn't care if he's caught. All he knows is that if he doesn't steal the bread then his family will starve and die.
Terrorists, insurgents, "freedom fighters" don't care if they get caught or get killed, they are fighting for something bigger than themselves.
Basically this group doesn't care about the consequences of their crime/actions, they care about the consequences of not committing the crime/act.
Deterrents (like death) don't matter to this group either. What they are doing is more important then anything that happens to them personally. If they get killed, so what?
3) They aren't thinking about the consequences/they are insane:
A man comes home and finds his wife sleeping with another man. He kills them both. At that moment he doesn't even think about the consequences; he is temporarily insane.
A woman believes, wrongly, that a man is responsible for the death of her child. She kills the man. She doesn't care about herself, only getting retribution for her child.
A man believes that god told him to kill his neighbors. He doesn't even think about the consequences; god told him to do it.
Deterrents matter even less to these people than the people in the other two groups. The people in the other two groups at least think about the deterrent at one point or another. This last group not only doesn't care, they don't even think about the consequence in the first place.
Look, noone wants to go to jail. And yet, our jails are completely over crowded. Did you see the news the other day? Califonia is going to release something like 50,000 prisoners over the next 3 years because their prisons are simply too overcrowded and the conditions are becoming inhumane (IIRC). Personally, I'd rather be killed than spend the rest of my life living in a prison.
I would also like to address soemething else you said:
"A new generation who never knew any other way of life will simply accept that crime equals death, and avoid it as one would any dangerous thing"
(emphasis mine)
Do you know how many people get killed in car accidents each year?
Do you know how many people die because of extreme sports? (sky diving, bungee jumping, etc)
Do you know how many people die from eating dangerous foods? (those poison fish, etc)
Did you know that more people die each year from eating hotdogs (via chocking) in the United States than die from gun violence? I'll say that again in case anyone missed it: [u]MORE PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY CHOCKING ON HOT DOGS THEN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE[/u]
What I'm saying is that people do not avoid dangerous things. Sure, many do, but people as a whole do not. The danger is often part of the fun.
This is getting good.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. People commit crimes for three basic reasons:
1) They don't think they'll get caught
2) They don't care if they are caught
3) They aren't thinking about the consequences
Look, noone wants to go to jail. And yet, our jails are completely over crowded.
What I'm saying is that people do not avoid dangerous things. Sure, many do, but people as a whole do not. The danger is often part of the fun.
Ah, but by and large they do avoid dangerous things. Exceptions abound, but for the most part we drive carefully because accidents can be fatal. We don't walk near sharp dropoffs or underneath heavy equipment because those things could injure us.
But as I said, exceptions (including the ones you listed) abound, and these are good arguments against the magic-book-scenario. So let's replace:
a magic book that kills criminals whose names are written inside
with...
a magic spell, willingly and knowingly cast by [you, me, etc], that kills anyone who engages in serious criminal activities.
Now we have a world in which:
1.) Everyone knows they'll be caught. The spell waits for no trial or due process. There is no getting caught. If you participate in serious-to-moderate criminal activity, the spell knows and you die.
and:
2.) Nobody needs to think about the consequences. You grew up in a world where fire is hot. Fire burns you. So you don't touch it, and you don't play with it. Crime becomes much the same thing. A natural hazard.
This is also a world in which:
1.) One generation must endure terrible changes and some pointless death, and...
2.) The murder of the occasional man or woman, who might've just made a mistake in submitting to to passion, anger, or youthful foolishness, and so committed a real crime. Admittedly, this person may have been, or may have become, a good and productive member of society.
What we gain is an entire world without violent crimes. No muggings, no thieves or killers. No war crimes. No terrorism. And it doesn't even cost us our free will. By and large, we retain our free will with regards to every other aspect of our lives (romance, profession, education, relocation, family, etc).
Is this world better than the one we live in now? Is the man who cast the spell, knowing that he condemned innocent people to die in doing so, a good man? Brave? Are a few wasted lives worth the many that he saves?
*rubs hands together*
This is getting good.
Ah, but by and large they do avoid dangerous things. Exceptions abound, but for the most part we drive carefully because accidents can be fatal. We don't walk near sharp dropoffs or underneath heavy equipment because those things could injure us.
But as I said, exceptions (including the ones you listed) abound, and these are good arguments against the magic-book-scenario. So let's replace:
a magic book that kills criminals whose names are written inside
with...
a magic spell, willingly and knowingly cast by [you, me, etc], that kills anyone who engages in serious criminal activities.
Now we have a world in which:
1.) Everyone knows they'll be caught. The spell waits for no trial or due process. There is no getting caught. If you participate in serious-to-moderate criminal activity, the spell knows and you die.
and:
2.) Nobody needs to think about the consequences. You grew up in a world where fire is hot. Fire burns you. So you don't touch it, and you don't play with it. Crime becomes much the same thing. A natural hazard.
"Fire burns you. So you don't touch it"
You have to get burned once to realise that you shouldn't touch fire.
This is also a world in which:
1.) One generation must endure terrible changes and some pointless death, and...
2.) The murder of the occasional man or woman, who might've just made a mistake in submitting to to passion, anger, or youthful foolishness, and so committed a real crime. Admittedly, this person may have been, or may have become, a good and productive member of society.
What we gain is an entire world without violent crimes. No muggings, no thieves or killers. No war crimes. No terrorism. And it doesn't even cost us our free will. By and large, we retain our free will with regards to every other aspect of our lives (romance, profession, education, relocation, family, etc).
No. What we gain is an entire world where violent crime is immediately punished by death. We have muggings, theives and killers. They just die as soon as they commit their crime. Sure, there would be less crime in this magical world with the "Death Spell of Vengence" (tm), but crime would not be stopped completely.
Group 1) This group would disappear. They know they will get caught, so they don't commit the crime.
Group 2) The number in this group would diminish. A man isn't going to steal a loaf of bread if he knows he will immediately die without getting the bread back to his family.
But the terrorisst, freedom fighters, etc aren't going to go away. They are fighting for something larger than themselves. Sure, they will get killed right after they commit thier crime, but that isn't going to stop them. Again, they don't care about their own life, only their goal.
(Unless the "Death Spell of Vengence" (tm) is a "Precognitive Death Spell of Vengence" (tm) and kills them right before they commit the act. In this case this group disappears)
Group 3) This group wouldn't change one bit as a result of the "Death Spell of Vengence" (tm). They are insane. A man coming home and finding his wife with another man doesn't even think about the fact that he will be killed by this spell as soon as he kills his wife and her lover. He is temporarily insane.
Now, with the "Precognitive Death Spell of Vengence" (tm) this group goes away, and by "goes away" I mean they get killed by the spell. In this case we aren't decreasing the number of deaths, only who is killed.
Is this world better than the one we live in now?
Is the man who cast the spell, knowing that he condemned innocent people to die in doing so, a good man? Brave? Are a few wasted lives worth the many that he saves?
These are hard questions. I would like to answer "it doesn't matter, because it can't actually happen" but that's a copout.
I think "yes" this world is better, in some ways, then the one we live in now. But I dont' think I'd want to live in it.
Is the man a good man?........No. Is he evil?.......No. Is he Brave? Hells no!
Are a few wasted lives worth the many that he saves? I think I might have to answer yes to this one. One innocent life to save millions of innocents. Where do you draw the line? 999,999,999 inocent lives to save 1,000,000,000.....? I don't know.
"Fire burns you. So you don't touch it"
You have to get burned once to realise that you shouldn't touch fire.
I've never been burned by fire, and I know better than to touch it.
What we gain is an entire world where violent crime is immediately punished by death. We have muggings, theives and killers. They just die as soon as they commit their crime. Sure, there would be less crime in this magical world with the "Death Spell of Vengence" (tm), but crime would not be stopped completely.
By your own admission, crime would be almost absent, however. It would be as common as burning to death is now.
Group 3) This group wouldn't change one bit as a result of the "Death Spell of Vengence" (tm). They are insane. A man coming home and finding his wife with another man doesn't even think about the fact that he will be killed by this spell as soon as he kills his wife and her lover.
If he grew up in a world where crime = death? Sure he'd think about it. A man who finds his wife in bed with his best friend won't often walk through a deadly wall of fire to do it, even if it means he'll be successful in killing them both.
In some cases, maybe, but by and large this world would be virtually perfect, would it not?
I think "yes" this world is better, in some ways, then the one we live in now. But I dont' think I'd want to live in it.
Why not, just out of curiosity?
One innocent life to save millions of innocents. Where do you draw the line? 999,999,999 inocent lives to save 1,000,000,000.....? I don't know.
A good question that boils down to: is one life worth less than two? Assuming no knowledge of the lives in question, I'd answer 'yes' to this, I think. We place different values on different people (wife, mother of four vs. one convicted felon and one homeless fella?), but as a general rule, less death is good, as it pertains to the innocent. Right?
EDIT: Fixed bizzare misquote. : P
I've never been burned by fire, and I know better than to touch it.
I highly doubt that you have never burned yourself on anything: a stove, a fire, a match, a hot lighter, a candle, a hot water pipe, coffee, etc.
By your own admission, crime would be almost absent, however. It would be as common as burning to death is now.
I think you are taking the analogy too far. Crime would diminish, yes, but it would still be present. Exactly how much is up for debate.
If he grew up in a world where crime = death? Sure he'd think about it. A man who finds his wife in bed with his best friend won't often walk through a deadly wall of fire to do it, even if it means he'll be successful in killing them both.
I'm sorry, but no, you are wrong. Temporary insanity is .... well, "real" for the lack of a better word. Insane people don't think. That's why they are called "crimes of passion".
"Passion rules reason" (One of the "Wizard's Rules" in "The Sword of Truth"). You can't just say "Sure he'd think about it". That's like saying "The mentally ill choose to be mentally ill" (I'm not trying to call you discriminatory or anything along those lines. Just making a comparison).
Now, yes, you are right, someone who doesn't go into a rage, who doesn't become "temporarily insane", would probably think about the fact that the spell will kill him. But there would be those that would become temorarily insane and would "walk through a deadly wall of fire" to kill thier wife and her lover.
Why not, just out of curiosity?
Ummm.... the quote you have right before this is not something I said....?
I R confused.
I am going to assume that you overwrote what was in that quote by mistake. Further, I am going to assume that what was in that quote was "I think "yes" this world is better, in some ways, then the one we live in now. But I dont' think I'd want to live in it. "
I am going to assume this because the question right after my non-quote (which I have quoted above) seems to follow from this.
A world where someone, or something, has total power, like the spell in this hypothetical situation, is a world where free will is diluted. Free will is not completely gone; I mean, I could still choose to kill someone in this world if I wanted too, but I would also be choosing death.
I guess it really just boils down to this: I don't want to live in some mystical world with an unnatural force that has been unleashed to "punish the sinners". Even though I personally am not a "sinner" (at least not to the degree where I would be killed via this spell), I still wouldn't want to live in that world. An intelligent force that kills based off of some set of rules just seems..... I guess "scary" is the best word to use here.
A good question that boils down to: is one life worth less than two? Assuming no knowledge of the lives in question, I'd answer 'yes' to this, I think. We place different values on different people (wife, mother of four vs. one convicted felon and one homeless fella?), but as a general rule, less death is good, as it pertains to the innocent. Right?
I think I'd have to answer "no", not if it has to be me to do the killing. One life to save millions (all innocents); sure. Kill one to save two? ....no. Not me. You can't save everyone and I wouldn't want that blood on my hands.
VERY few men would become suicidally enraged by the cheating-wife scenario, but yes, there would be a few. It stands to reason that the world would be almost crime-free then.
I still wouldn't want to live in that world. An intelligent force that kills based off of some set of rules just seems..... I guess "scary" is the best word to use here.
Scary, yes, but possibly scary in a 'scary utopia' kind of way. Which could very well be awesome. : P
Does treating human lives as though they were math problems.
Joseph Stalin treated people like math problems, and I think most people would say he was evil (even though he saw himself as doing good for the country).
Adultery usually has pretty detrimental consequences, for the exact same reasons that lying does. All relationships, romantic and otherwise, have to assume some level of trust to function. When the majority of your success and happiness (family, romance, children, history, wealth) is riding upon a relationship with someone in whom your trust is misplaced, the consequences will almost always be negative.
... All of which come from the fact that our societies have labeled the action wrong.
But we aren't discussing long-term consequences. If I go to jail, all the murderers around the world stop dying. If that happens, crime rates return to normal.
*sight*
Real Life >>>>> Fiction.
1) Evidence and due process.
Light Yagami killed people simply because other people claimed that that person was a criminal. Light was not omniscient; the main sources of his intel on who was a criminal were the news and the internet. There are even some scenes in the TV series where kids were threatening their classmates with "I will put your names on the internet so Kira will kill you." As such, Light's war against criminals was many elements of a Witch Hunt.
2) Punishment in proportion to the crime.
The only punishment Light could give was death, so he gave even minor suspected criminals the death penalty. Judging by the fact that Light or his agents were killing a entire page's worth of criminals a night, 3 years after his original debut, he couldn't have just been killing the most hardened and dangerous criminals.
It is also worth noting that Light did seem to have a daily quota for deaths. He is never seen putting much thought or research into who he killed. Really, killing dangerous criminals was never the point of his actions. The only reason Light continued to kill criminals was to remind people that he still existed and that he still had the power to kill whomever he pleased.
That is the thing, the world Kira was creating was built on fear; not fear of being a criminal, but fear of Kira's wrath coming down upon you. It was well known that Kira killed those who opposed him. Even upright and just people were killed by Kira if they opposed him. In fact, Light seemed to take the idea of people getting in his way very personally, and killed several people unnecessarily because of that.
Furthermore, the "Kira worshippers" seemed to be able to act with immunity. At one point, a gang of Kira worshippers carrying illegal firearms gun down a person who was already surrendering, just because he opposed Kira. This is criminal behavior, but because it was done by people who worshipped Kira as a god, they weren't punished.
All told, Light's actions and overall strategy were primarily designed to make the entire world bow down to him. The killing of criminals to create an ideal world was only a weak excuse he used to gain followers and justify his actions to himself. The only reason Light thought that a world that he ruled as a god would be "good" was because Light was simply that egotistical.
Personally, I don't see what is "good" about an Orwellian society founded on witch hunts.
... All of which come from the fact that our societies have labeled the action wrong.
Do you think there is anything we can label as fundamentally "wrong", "bad" or "evil"? (Like, say, nuking the entire planet, committing full-on gaiacide, basically?)
... All of which come from the fact that our societies have labeled the action wrong.
Actually, evolution did. It's a matter of surviving and getting along with everyone else. There is no historical evidence that the rules of morality were consciously decided or a contract made by our ancestors. It's simple. Screwing everybody over means that you have decided to rely on chance to succeed (get away with it and be successful or get caught and be totally screwed right back by everybody else), which is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Also, take murder (defined for these purposes as the wanton killing of human being). If murder was right then we'd all be dead, because there's be no reason not to do it, and not doing it or preventing others from engaging in murder would be wrong ("not right" = "wrong"; "Not murdering" = "not right" = "wrong"). Since right and wrong are binomial in nature (it's one or the other, not both or neither), it can thus be concluded that murder is wrong.
And thus logic and math (specifically Boolean logic) triumphs over intellectual masturbation yet again.
First: Been wanting to have a good discussion about this for awhile.
Second: Going to quote dirtyfrank from a thread in Astrid's. The post inspired me to ask the question I've been itching to ask, and to do it here, on the D&D forums. Dirtyfrank is referring to Light Yagami, of Deathnote fame. You need not be a fan of the series to participate in this discussion. Read on.
My question is this. Is frank right?
If you approach a task which is inherently good (saving lives and stopping crimes) by doing something which is evil, but does not outweigh the good you are doing, are you committing evil?
Does treating human lives as though they were math problems: (a few slain innocents > many slain innocents) make you evil, even when your cause is absolutely good? I'm not talking about D&D alignment, by the way, I'm talking about the real deal. Good vs. Evil... vs. Math.
If your answer is "yes, slaying innocents is evil", where do you draw the line? If one man has to die for millions, and you have to pull the trigger, are you evil? What if it's one man for hundreds? One man for two? Where is the line drawn? What seperates good math from bad math?
What if we aren't talking about killing? What if we're talking about something more tame? Does it become acceptable to view evil as a math problem when you're talking about money? Stealing hard-earned, legitimately-earned money from socially-responsible rich people to feed the poor? What about doing the same thing, to save the dying?
I hope this isn't a CoC violation. I want to have this discussion.
Eveyone has there own options of what good and evil is.
In the case of Light Hes Lawfull Evil he was doing Evil just in a "Lawful Way" He was bending the Law to Suit HIS Needs and what he beleved the needs of others.
he killed Innocents which is Evil what he should of done is Eather A) Convince them to leave him alone
B) Knock them out like put them into a comma or something with his powers or w/e. and let them come back to live at a later time and provide for there family or such in an unknown way.
Each human is born into a world With sin, Our goals in rather about Good vs Evil is to Do one or the other, If you choose good then you allso need to understand that sometimes good is at a Sac of ones own life.
A good example of this is from the game Baulders gate 2 Shadows of amn in Trademeet where mazzy family lives theres 2 people argueing over things. and as a result one guy gets killed. But by that guy being murderd by the other person it proved his theroy right.
FYI Math has been proven wrong time and time again and people allways had to recalulate again and again and again and again. and theres allways something out there that can just succer punch Math.
So that takes care of the Math problem ... Lets see back to the other problem you have ...
Hm Lets put it like this in a Evil way on how good is well Good.
Good Is better then Evil Good Is the more powerful of things.
Lets see how long has eviled tryed to take over mankind and such? And the constent argueing and fighting they do, Which is useoly counterd by like 4-6 yrs at most from a good person When evil planed there thing for like 30+ Years.
And still failed.
Doing Drugs, Getting it on before marrage. (Like gays/lesbians count as well or bi acts) things in that nature
All tests of strength. Dont like it? Well at least we know who has a stronger sence of will power.
Yes even what i just stated can be considerd Evil I Will admit That im more of a creature of Power and Good Is power.
I Mean Planet earth may not be a Good place yet. Mostly coz its filled with alot of Neautrol type people and Good pretty much understands the whole freedom of speech and such.
Why do i not state all the reasons/knowledge i have about this topic? Becouse of the small chance of people learning this on there own and chooseingto learn insteed of being forced to or presserd.
Eveyone has there own options and its up to them. But from what ive learned and All Good is better Math isnt allways what it seems to be Evil is over rated and Yes being good is very hard thing to do. But yes people can be good. We may not be Perfect but who said Good = Perfect?
I Would state so much more Buy by doing so i would be bringing alot of Religous speek and such into this and be clouse to breaking the CoC of Wizards and such that i rather not risk it.
Besides this Awsome dude has alot of good points.
And no Math dos not beat all in fact half the time Math gets beaten by some random outside Force and or By it self.
Math Beats Math. Not all.
FYI Math has been proven wrong time and time again and people allways had to recalulate again and again and again and again. and theres allways something out there that can just succer punch Math.
So that takes care of the Math problem
None of this is actually true.
Do you think there is anything we can label as fundamentally "wrong", "bad" or "evil"? (Like, say, nuking the entire planet, committing full-on gaiacide, basically?)
Destroying the planet? Sure, that's one of the things everyone will agree is wrong. Well, everyone except some weird Japanese religious sect and a crazy but brilliant professor who thinks mankind has erred too much and nature should get a chance to start anew. And an occasional sociopath, aspie, or a RPG fan who thinks everyone around him should die.
So yeah, that is one of the things almost everyone will agree it is wrong.
Do you think there is anything we can label as fundamentally "wrong", "bad" or "evil"? (Like, say, nuking the entire planet, committing full-on gaiacide, basically?)
no, there is absolutely nothing wrong about gaiacide and i endorse it.
:P
If your answer is "yes, slaying innocents is evil", where do you draw the line? If one man has to die for millions, and you have to pull the trigger, are you evil? What if it's one man for hundreds? One man for two? Where is the line drawn? What seperates good math from bad math?
Well, my opinion has always been this:
The rights of the individual should always trump the rights of the majority. if a farmer somewhere discovers a cure for cancer and decides to keep it for himself, the majority should not be able to force him to share it. By extension, if the death of the farmer, who has never hurt anyone via aggressive force would lead to world peace, the the world should just accept a lack thereof.