Page 48 of 56 FirstFirst ...
38
46
47
48
49
50
... LastLast
  1. #941
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatbulter View Post
    I don't know what you expected, me to say it wouldn't be evil? Why would I say that because it would affect myself, what kind of flimsy worldview would that be?
    The question was specifically which choice is NOT evil, and you made a choice. Your initial response didn't indicate you thought the choice was still evil. So was just checking.

    Am glad you're consistent. Some people aren't. /shrug.

    Moving on because you and I disagree, as you said, so there's no point on continuing the discussion. That's all.

  2. #942
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    The Wild Hunt itself is not the only thing we should consider when debating the Winter Queen's guilt.

    We also have to wonder to what degree her passivity (and that of the other Eternal Ones) allowed the Jailer to go through with his plans. They are the keepers of the Shadowlands and the ones who imprisoned him, after all. They are responsible for the solution they used to contain him.

    Other aspects are her reaction speed at the start of the drought and her communication with her followers. Ara'lon was not aware of the Wild Hunt in spite of the fact that the drought had gone one for several seasons. He was left pretty much to fend for himself, until the Winter Queen's posse came to take his stuff. Nor did he have a say in the first pods they claimed while he was away (Urson was merely the last one left).

    Then, there is the fact that she failed to ask another Covenant for help for the longest time. From what I understand, at the end of the zone campaign she sends the PC to Revendreth (sure, Denathrius is in league with the Jailer, but she didn't know that). We also don't know whether or not she has any extra power of her own that she could sacrifice for Ardenweald. I mean, is it really an impossible choice, or is it just bad management...?

    Finally - and again I might have a faulty understanding of what transpires in the quest line - couldn't she give an option to the sacrificed Wild Gods to remain bound to Ardenweald and fight for it one last time instead of simply being consumed? Of course, the flip of that argument could be that the Wild God souls are not owed resurrection. That seems more like a privilege than a right, but we don't know how the practice came to be (now that I think about it, Ardenweald could exercise HUGE political influence over the tribal races on mortal worlds by choosing which of their gods to revive faster and which ones to cull altogether... another element that makes them kind of creepy, although, like everything else, it all depends on whether or not the writers are aware of the implications).
    all of this is prety much true.
    from what we've seen, the eternal ones stopped giving a real fck about the jailer once they imprisoned him. no way to guard what hes doing in there, in an ENTIRE REALM FILLING WITH SOULS, JUST FOR HIMSELF. its downright dumb of them, and makes them all at least partially guilty
    also, the fact that she sends us at the end of the qusting to go to revendreht and ask denathrius for anima. she didnt do that sooner, she just decided to sacrifice countless souls first.
    granted, its all for the sake of having drama and a plot, but that doesnt change anything in-lore
    The crooked shitposter with no eyes is watching from the endless thread.

    From the space that is everywhere and nowhere, the crooked shitposter feasts on memes.

    He has no eyes to see, but he dreams of infinite memeing and trolling.

  3. #943
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    It very heavily depends on the context.

    I agree that it's a terrible decision to have to make, but if it saves more lives and in some situations prevents the deaths of even more innocents it's not morally reprehensible. In fact, it would be reprehensible to do nothing, and therefore allow even more innocents to die.
    Let me put it this way. You are the director of a hospital and you have multiple patients in need of various transplants. Assuming you could save several of them with organs from one other patient who entrusted their life to you for an unrelated reason, would it be morally acceptable to kill that patient in their sleep and scavenge them for parts?

  4. #944
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Let me put it this way. You are the director of a hospital and you have multiple patients in need of various transplants. Assuming you could save several of them with organs from one other patient who entrusted their life to you for an unrelated reason, would it be morally acceptable to kill that patient in their sleep and scavenge them for parts?
    Doctors are beholden to the Hippocratic Oath, so it would be immortal for them to do harm to the one patient as opposed to healing them - even if the outcome of said harm is to the benefit of those needing transplantation. The Hippocratic Oath is the active agent dictating good vs. evil in this particular analogy, which is why donors of organs are required in the first place, as a donor waives the expectation and permits the action to be done without effective harm (as long as said donor is dead).
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  5. #945
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Doctors are beholden to the Hippocratic Oath, so it would be immortal for them to do harm to the one patient as opposed to healing them - even if the outcome of said harm is to the benefit of those needing transplantation. The Hippocratic Oath is the active agent dictating good vs. evil in this particular analogy, which is why donors of organs are required in the first place, as a donor waives the expectation and permits the action to be done without effective harm (as long as said donor is dead).
    The point I'm trying to make is that taking it upon yourself to decide who lives and who dies is indeed evil, even if it is utilitarian, because by doing so you are removing someone else's agency. The train scenario hides the ugliness of it because it implies some hidden villain who put both the subject and the victims in that situation, and you can pass the guilt on them, much like people are passing the Winter Queen's guilt on the Jailer. Since it is later revealed that asking for anima somewhere else and, I assume, trying to stop the problem from outside Ardenweald itself are options, one can't say that the Winter Queen was desperate enough to be absolved of guilt for her approach.

  6. #946
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Let me put it this way. You are the director of a hospital and you have multiple patients in need of various transplants. Assuming you could save several of them with organs from one other patient who entrusted their life to you for an unrelated reason, would it be morally acceptable to kill that patient in their sleep and scavenge them for parts?
    To get straight to the point, I wouldn't consider that decision "evil" depending on what "several" means and what condition that single patient was in. I can't say exactly where the breaking point is between acceptable and unacceptable, because it would depend on several factors.

    In a straight forward and simple example where there's no other factors to consider except saving one or saving many, "saving many" wins out, every time. But things are rarely that simple.

  7. #947
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    The point I'm trying to make is that taking it upon yourself to decide who lives and who dies is indeed evil, even if it is utilitarian, because by doing so you are removing someone else's agency. The train scenario hides the ugliness of it because it implies some hidden villain who put both the subject and the victims in that situation, and you can pass the guilt on them, much like people are passing the Winter Queen's guilt on the Jailer. Since it is later revealed that asking for anima somewhere else and, I assume, trying to stop the problem from outside Ardenweald itself are options, one can't say that the Winter Queen was desperate enough to be absolved of guilt for her approach.
    "Taking it upon yourself" would be the key element in this example I would probably focus on, because what is meant or implied by "taking is upon oneself" in either situation? Barring the example of the Hippocratic Oath expressly forbidding it, the director of the hospital isn't taking said responsibility upon themselves unilaterally, they've quite literally been chosen to direct the hospital and thus invested with the authority and responsibility to make the decision. That's not a unilateral "evil" power-grab, that's their fundamental function in said environment - it's what they're meant to do. Is that evil? Why is it evil? If decisions about human life fall under their purview, than any decision they make in the execution of said function can't be seen as evil unless a third-party element comes into play.

    The same is true of the Winter Queen - it's her duty, her literal purpose, to oversee Ardenweald and as such choose who lives and who dies in the scenario that's occurring. It's also difficult to pass judgment on her request for anima from Denathrius, because we don't know what that actually entails or what kind of ramifications it may have for Ardenweald as a whole.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  8. #948
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    The point I'm trying to make is that taking it upon yourself to decide who lives and who dies is indeed evil, even if it is utilitarian, because by doing so you are removing someone else's agency. The train scenario hides the ugliness of it because it implies some hidden villain who put both the subject and the victims in that situation, and you can pass the guilt on them, much like people are passing the Winter Queen's guilt on the Jailer. Since it is later revealed that asking for anima somewhere else and, I assume, trying to stop the problem from outside Ardenweald itself are options, one can't say that the Winter Queen was desperate enough to be absolved of guilt for her approach.
    Just because there are other options, doesn't mean those other options are at all viable. Having an option that absolutely is of no use to even really consider, is not really an option. The entirety of the Shadowlands are suffering the same anima drought issue, therefore asking for assistance from outside is not a viable option.

    Additionally, other options take time to implement and even figure out if it's truly an option. Requesting aid doesn't mean you're going to get it, and waiting for the response takes time, time which she apparently didn't have. It's essentially triage. She has to do something now, to prevent even greater harm, because to wait for outside help or trying to fix the problem takes time they don't have.

  9. #949
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    "Taking it upon yourself" would be the key element in this example I would probably focus on, because what is meant or implied by "taking is upon oneself" in either situation? Barring the example of the Hippocratic Oath expressly forbidding it, the director of the hospital isn't taking said responsibility upon themselves unilaterally, they've quite literally been chosen to direct the hospital and thus invested with the authority and responsibility to make the decision. That's not a unilateral "evil" power-grab, that's their fundamental function in said environment - it's what they're meant to do. Is that evil? Why is it evil? If decisions about human life fall under their purview, than any decision they make in the execution of said function can't be seen as evil unless a third-party element comes into play.
    Bringing up the Hippocratic Oath is skirting the question and kind of pointless. We were discussing the morality of it in abstract. Of course we don't want doctors to be making such decisions, nobody would dare go to a hospital if they did - hence the Hippocratic Oath, and more importantly actual legislation, since the oath itself is not legally binding and words are wind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Just because there are other options, doesn't mean those other options are at all viable. Having an option that absolutely is of no use to even really consider, is not really an option. The entirety of the Shadowlands are suffering the same anima drought issue, therefore asking for assistance from outside is not a viable option.
    Yet this is exactly what she does in game. Sending the player character to ask for anima is the breadcrumb quest to Revendreth from what I understand. Also, the larger problem of the Jailer would have to be resolved at some point, and would require cooperation among Covenants, something that has happened before. Wasting entire seasons trying to resolve the problem in-house while killing who knows how many wild gods in the process is not exactly good management. I mean, I get trying to keep the things afloat, but nothing moves communication-wise until the player gets there.
    Last edited by Coconut; 2020-09-11 at 05:21 PM.

  10. #950
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Bringing up the Hippocratic Oath is skirting the question and kind of pointless. We were discussing the morality of it in abstract. Of course we don't want doctors to be making such decisions, nobody would dare go to a hospital if they did - hence the Hippocratic Oath, and more importantly actual legislation, since the oath itself is not legally binding and words are wind.
    My post above actually removes the Hippocratic Oath from contention, though; and discusses the morality of individuals invested with the authority to literally choose who lives and who dies. If someone has that authority invested in them, then executing the authority and making the choice isn't evil - it's their job or function. Such as a general sending their troops on a mission where some of them may die, or be injured - are they evil for doing what a general is supposed to do: command soldiers to achieve an objective?
    Last edited by Aucald; 2020-09-11 at 05:13 PM.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  11. #951
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    My post above actually removes the Hippocratic Oath from contention, though; and discusses the morality of individuals invested with the authority to literally choose who lives and who dies. If someone has that authority invested in them, then executing the authority and making the choice isn't evil - it's their job or function. Such as a general sending their troops on a mission where some of them may die, or be injured - are they evil for doing what a general is supposed to do: command soldiers to achieve an objective?
    Well, I would say that war is evil. If they are the instigators, they are cogs in the machine. If they are the defenders (and if defense is actually a just and wise course), then they are simply managing the efforts.

  12. #952
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Yet this is exactly what she does in game. Sending the player character to ask for anima is the breadcrumb quest to Revendreth from what I understand. Also, the larger problem of the Jailer would have to be resolved at some pointy, and would require cooperation among Covenants, something that has happened before. Wasting entire seasons trying to resolve the problem in-house while killing who knows how many wild gods in the process is not exactly good management. I mean, I get trying to keep the things afloat, but nothing moves communication-wise until the player gets there.
    And I'm guessing it's a last ditch effort to try ANY option that MIGHT help even a little. However, she still needs to take action NOW to prevent all of Ardenweald from dying. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.

    If there's a patient on the table dying NOW, you don't just walk away from them while you go and figure out and can implement or execute what will 100% cure/fix/stabilize them. You do everything you can to keep them alive while working on the options until you've exhausted every possible option.

  13. #953
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    And I'm guessing it's a last ditch effort to try ANY option that MIGHT help even a little. However, she still needs to take action NOW to prevent all of Ardenweald from dying. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.

    If there's a patient on the table dying NOW, you don't just walk away from them while you go and figure out and can implement or execute what will 100% cure/fix/stabilize them. You do everything you can to keep them alive while working on the options until you've exhausted every possible option.
    Yeah, save for killing another person for parts.

    Still, you say last ditch effort, I say lack of communication for entire seasons while the drought kept going. Whether the writers intended it or not, the clip makes it seem that the Winter Queen is partially responsible for the urgency, which makes it harder to eliminate all blame. I'm not saying she's necessarily a villain mind you, just that the ways of Ardenweald are a bit dark, and certainly debatable when it comes to ethics.

  14. #954
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Well, I would say that war is evil. If they are the instigators, they are cogs in the machine. If they are the defenders (and if defense is actually a just and wise course), then they are simply managing the efforts.
    And "war," in the case of Ardenweald, is caused by the Drought - to which I'd agree. The Drought, and more the agents who caused it, are the evil ones in that scenario.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  15. #955
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Yeah, save for killing another person for parts.
    If that's some kind of jab, that's very petty on your part. I explained my viewpoint quite clearly, I think. Context matters. Save the many over saving the few. I'd need a LOT more information before deciding what's acceptable in that situation.

    Still, you say last ditch effort, I say lack of communication for entire seasons while the drought kept going. Whether the writers intended it or not, the clip makes it seem that the Winter Queen is partially responsible for the urgency, which makes it harder to eliminate all blame. I'm not saying she's necessarily a villain mind you, just that the ways of Ardenweald are a bit dark, and certainly debatable when it comes to ethics.
    I don't know enough about it to have much of an opinion, yet. The cinematic makes the situation seem dire and urgent. Maybe she waited too long to begin doing something, but nobody should rush into making decisions like culling portions of the population to save the rest. If she made a mistake by waiting too long, then she made a mistake and she bears the blame for that, but that still doesn't make her a villain or evil (and I'm not saying you're claiming that) for putting that heavy decision off for as long as possible.

    I'll revise my opinion as new information comes out, but as of now all I see is that she's just a queen doing the best she can to save her "kingdom" and having to make some really difficult choices along the way.

  16. #956
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    And "war," in the case of Ardenweald, is caused by the Drought - to which I'd agree. The Drought, and more the agents who caused it, are the evil ones in that scenario.
    Possibly true (we can still circle back to what the Queen and others could have done to prevent the Jailer from doing what he did, or to make sure they have contingencies in place for such a situation, or to what exactly are the Jailor's reasons), but it still doesn't absolve the Queen. In the case of a car accident involving 5 people, a doctor could save 4 by sacrificing one without their consent, but if that one would have had a reasonable chance of surviving on their own, it would still be a highly questionable decision on an abstract ethical level, and a career ending jail time worthy one in real life.

    In game, I believe it should be seen as utilitarian and (darkly) grey, not pure and tragic, and it could have parallels to Sylvanas and/or the Jailer depending on where they stand relative to that Nathrezim (?) cosmic conspiracy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    If that's some kind of jab, that's very petty on your part. I explained my viewpoint quite clearly, I think. Context matters. Save the many over saving the few. I'd need a LOT more information before deciding what's acceptable in that situation.
    In the real world, situations can come up where utilitarian decisions must be taken to save lives, and in those cases the lives of the many should outweigh the lives of the few, yes. But on a more general ethical level, human life should be valued as if it was infinite, otherwise we can end up with all sorts of fucked up dystopian situations in trying to min max at every corner. Five times infinite is still infinite, you can't make that comparison.

    Saying it is ok to cannibalize an non-consenting person who could have otherwise lived in order to save 5 others who needed transplants, while it may seem pragmatic, is at best ethically immature. At present, you can't even take organs from a dead person without (prior) consent from them or their relatives, and one of the reason some people refuse to have donor's card in some countries is actually that they are afraid a doctor would not try as hard to save their life in case of an accident if they needed the organs. Once you go down the path where society no longer considers that a person's right to life is unassailable (bar some very extreme circumstances), it's every man for himself.

  17. #957
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    32,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    Possibly true (we can still circle back to what the Queen and others could have done to prevent the Jailer from doing what he did, or to make sure they have contingencies in place for such a situation, or to what exactly are the Jailor's reasons), but it still doesn't absolve the Queen. In the case of a car accident involving 5 people, a doctor could save 4 by sacrificing one without their consent, but if that one would have had a reasonable chance of surviving on their own, it would still be a highly questionable decision on an abstract ethical level, and a career ending jail time worthy one in real life.

    In game, I believe it should be seen as utilitarian and (darkly) grey, not pure and tragic, and it could have parallels to Sylvanas and/or the Jailer depending on where they stand relative to that Nathrezim (?) cosmic conspiracy.
    It's not really the responsibility to prevent or otherwise constrain the Jailer from doing evil himself - as the Jailer and Winter Queen are both individuals with their own essential will and agencies to act, why would the Winter Queen be responsible for the Jailer's action? The Jailer was presumably imprisoned for good cause, as a result of an executive decision arrived at by all the other Eternal Ones (the Archon, the Winter Queen, the Primus, the Arbiter, and Sire Denathrius) - so why is the Winter Queen to blame here? She's not purposefully, directly or indirectly, imperiling her own realm by depriving it of anima, and as such she's a victim of the Jailer's actions against her and the rest of the Shadowlands. "Survival," too, is thrown into question here - what is more important in the larger scheme that the Winter Queen is empowered to protect and preserve: individual lives that are a product of the machine of rebirth that is Ardenweald, or the machine itself who failure results in certain and final death to *all* lives present? If the machine does not survive, then no one survives insofar as Ardenweald is concerned, and the Winter Queen has thusly failed all her charges simultaneously instead of just a few. It's brutal calculus, sure, but these are brutal times for the Winter Queen and her people.

    You don't get much more morally gray than this, to be honest.
    "Here lies a toppled god.
    His fall was not a small one.
    We did but build his pedestal,
    A narrow and a tall one."

  18. #958
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    It's not really the responsibility to prevent or otherwise constrain the Jailer from doing evil himself - as the Jailer and Winter Queen are both individuals with their own essential will and agencies to act, why would the Winter Queen be responsible for the Jailer's action? The Jailer was presumably imprisoned for good cause, as a result of an executive decision arrived at by all the other Eternal Ones (the Archon, the Winter Queen, the Primus, the Arbiter, and Sire Denathrius) - so why is the Winter Queen to blame here? She's not purposefully, directly or indirectly, imperiling her own realm by depriving it of anima, and as such she's a victim of the Jailer's actions against her and the rest of the Shadowlands. "Survival," too, is thrown into question here - what is more important in the larger scheme that the Winter Queen is empowered to protect and preserve: individual lives that are a product of the machine of rebirth that is Ardenweald, or the machine itself who failure results in certain and final death to *all* lives present? If the machine does not survive, then no one survives insofar as Ardenweald is concerned, and the Winter Queen has thusly failed all her charges simultaneously instead of just a few. It's brutal calculus, sure, but these are brutal times for the Winter Queen and her people.

    You don't get much more morally gray than this, to be honest.
    Is the Pantheon of Death responsible for the Jailer's actions? I think this is still an open question, actually.

    Assuming they are not, and he's just an imprisoned cosmic villain, having him imprisoned in the Maw still means if you're an Eternal One you're basically Mayor of Volcanotown. You're not responsible for his deeds, but you're still responsible for how you manage the potential threat.

    If the Jailer was imprisoned unjustly, that means that the Winter Queen and the others might have built their realms with stolen capital, and are now reaping what they've sown. If it turns out you stole a property, your kids will still get kicked out of it, and it will be your fault they become destitute, not the owner's. Is the Jailer aware of what his anima-siphoning is causing in the other realms, of what they became since his imprisonment? Does he have an alternative, if he wants to free himself? Is it his fault if the Winter Queen holds the souls of Wild Gods hostage against anima that is rightfully his? This is a speculative scenario, of course, but it is worth considering.

    The other thing is how it potentially frames other character arcs. There is the long going theory - so reviled around here - that Sylvanas is somehow doing all of this for the greater good, that she's either earning the Jailer's trust in order to pull a Snape on him, or that the Jailer is in fact the "good" guy who would oppose the forces that are currently behind the master plan of Death. Many people are extremely put off by a narrative which would frame the genocide of Teldrassil as "the right thing". Yet by the same logic used in the case of the Winter Queen, IF indeed Sylvanas is playing a long con against the conspiracy hinted at in the recently datamined journal, then Teldrassil was 100% justified, for what do those lives matter when Death threatens to consume all Cosmos anyway? Even more than that, the souls of most (?) Night Elves killed at Teldrassil were actually rescued and made it safely to Ardenweald, while Ursoc is completely and irrevocably gone.

    So I have to ask, would the people who think the Winter Queen did nothing wrong also forgive Sylvanas for the atrocities in BFA if it turns out it was all part of some heroic ruse to gain leverage against an already imminent threat?
    Last edited by Coconut; 2020-09-11 at 07:12 PM.

  19. #959
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    In the real world, situations can come up where utilitarian decisions must be taken to save lives, and in those cases the lives of the many should outweigh the lives of the few, yes. But on a more general ethical level, human life should be valued as if it was infinite, otherwise we can end up with all sorts of fucked up dystopian situations in trying to min max at every corner. Five times infinite is still infinite, you can't make that comparison.

    Saying it is ok to cannibalize an non-consenting person who could have otherwise lived in order to save 5 others who needed transplants, while it may seem pragmatic, is at best ethically immature.
    This is an ideal that just doesn't align with reality.

    This ideal is ethically immature, or at least naive. The reality is that human life IS measured, it doesn't have infinite value. Nor should it, in my opinion, specifically because of situations where saving the many is a better option than saving the few. Trying to say that because human life is infinite and therefore many times infinity is the same value as 1x infinity and therefore saving one life is just as valuable as saving many lives is ridiculous.

    This mentality would be ethically worse. Because it would mean that there's no reason, or no value in choosing to save more people. Which, if put into practice, would lead to the death's of many more people.

    At present, you can't even take organs from a dead person without (prior) consent from them or their relatives, and one of the reason some people refuse to have donor's card in some countries is actually that they are afraid a doctor would not try as hard to save their life in case of an accident if they needed the organs.
    You're talking about laws, here. That's not the same as morals.

    Humans are fallible and aren't virtuous upstanding moral scions, no one is. The fear those people have isn't exactly misguided.

    Also, you're the only person talking about killing a non-consenting person to harvest their organs to save 5 people. If that were all I had to go on, yes I'd find that morally reprehensible too. Specifically because of the fact that you have to MURDER someone to do it. But depending on the situation? Maybe acceptable, or even justified. Like if the person "donating" the organs, was the person who put the other 5 people in a position to need transplants in the first place.

    Once you go down the path where society no longer considers that a person's right to life is unassailable (bar some very extreme circumstances), it's every man for himself.
    Hate to break it to you, but it already IS every man for himself. There are just laws that prevent some things from happening everywhere constantly but I promise you they ARE still happening. You do know there's already a black market for human organs right? Estimated total value of the human body, based on the highest market value on the illegal market as of 2015, is about $1.2 billion.

  20. #960
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Also, you're the only person talking about killing a non-consenting person to harvest their organs to save 5 people. If that were all I had to go on, yes I'd find that morally reprehensible too. Specifically because of the fact that you have to MURDER someone to do it. But depending on the situation? Maybe acceptable, or even justified. Like if the person "donating" the organs, was the person who put the other 5 people in a position to need transplants in the first place.
    I'm talking about murder because that's what gives the ethical problem weight.

    If it's some fabricated scenario where someone is going to die anyway, and you have a binary choice imposed to you by some other force, obviously you will choose to save more lives in most cases. But when it comes to taking away a random, unrelated person's right to live simply because it would get you a net gain of lives, I am happy to see that you balk and consider that immoral, as most people would.

    Ironically, I am not a moral idealist at all. I believe ethics are a result of our social needs and experiences, and yes, I am well aware that horrible things still happen under the veneer of civilization. Still, you will find that as soon as society at large starts to put a price on human lives, they will soon become worthless, so we must have laws - yes - and social conventions that prevent that. And no, it's not entirely every man for himself, certainly not in the West, or even in most of the world, so dull that edge a bit. If it was truly every man for himself, you'd risk being shanked for a loaf of bread every time you exit your house. We should be mindful of the many limitations of society, but we should still respect what we do have.


    Edit: To circle back to the original argument, by calling the Wild Hunt, the Winter Queen is essentially choosing who dies and who gets a chance to live, instead of leaving it to luck and the skill of individual grove tenders. The pods that are deemed important are moved to less affected areas, and not everyone is culled, so this is basically a scenario of the rich feeding on the poor on the Wild God hierarchy.

    You might think that Ursoc's pod was about to fade anyway, but the clip implies that, had Ara'lon chosen to keep caring for it, he might have still had a chance, so what happened there was murder. Murder for the good of others, but still murder, and a bit messed up in that the tender was faced with a choice, but the actual victim wasn't. This is why the scenario I discussed above applies better than the train track problem.
    Last edited by Coconut; 2020-09-11 at 07:55 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •