Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
18
... LastLast
  1. #141
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    22,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    That poster has also been trying to rationalize it by turning it into an equation. No, they don't think civilian lives have much weight if they're killed under the guise of "quick and painless".

    If you want to go by how it's presented in lore, it was the wrong move. Uther and Jaina made the right call, something backed up by other characters who were afforded more hindsight than those who were there.

    If you want to try and frame it in a more real world sense as other posters have then it was still the wrong move, and would have been EVEN MORE horrible than the simplified way it's presented in the story.
    if the options are quick and painless, or extremly long, painful torture, then of fucking course quick and painless is way better.

  2. #142
    He wasn't wrong. That doesn't mean he was right though. To quote paladins from DnD, you don't take the lesser evil (Happens in the Witcher too), so he wasn't really justified in killing so many people, from a moral standpoint even if in heartless calculations, it was the sensible thing to do.

    It's an interesting dilemma because he wasn't wrong... but he was also very wrong.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    if the options are quick and painless, or extremly long, painful torture, then of fucking course quick and painless is way better.
    I added a line right before you quoted me:

    It's meant to a be a textbook example of the best intentions being used to excuse the unforgivable. As soon as you start weighing lives and make unilateral decisions for how people SHOULD die, you've stopped thinking of them as people.

    It's an entirely selfish action to make that decision for someone else. But it makes for a great anti-villain motivation. They believe they're right, that there is no other way, and so they abuse their power and impose their will on their victims.

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysterymask View Post
    ok thread over
    This was apparently not the case - it would seem mass genocide is a hot button issue for the wow community.
    Quote Originally Posted by Utrrabbit View Post
    Any sane person would see your a moron.

  5. #145
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    22,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    I added a line right before you quoted me:

    It's meant to a be a textbook example of the best intentions being used to excuse the unforgivable. As soon as you start weighing lives and make unilateral decisions for how people SHOULD die, you've stopped thinking of them as people.

    It's an entirely selfish action to make that decision for someone else. But it makes for a great anti-villain motivation. They believe they're right, that there is no other way, and so they abuse their power and impose their will on their victims.
    thinking of them no longer as people would be not caring how they die, letting them suffer.

    thinking something as an object would be to let it suffer
    having compassion for something is putting something out of its misery.

  6. #146
    He should have locked the gates and let the grain-eating degenerates die off.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    thinking of them no longer as people would be not caring how they die, letting them suffer.

    thinking something as an object would be to let it suffer
    having compassion for something is putting something out of its misery.
    The point is you're projecting what you want onto other people who can make decisions for themselves which might not match your own. If you're the one acting on those decisions, as Arthas was, then you're robbing other people of their agency (and their lives).

  8. #148
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,064
    Quote Originally Posted by clevin View Post
    No, a real life analogy would be killing people at a superspreader event because you couldn't know if they had it and might spread it.

    You people are bad at this.
    Nah. An analogy doesn't have to be on par. My analogy was referring to how you can't know someone ate the tainted grain, so you [insert action here]. Likewise, with a real-life pandemic in our world, we did the same: we locked down and implemented mask requirements, regardless of if you have or don't have it. Since covid doesn't turn you into the rabid undead, it's comparatively tame.

    In the case of Stratholme, as I said more than once through the thread, Arthas had no choice but to slaughter the city. Those that were infected weren't just going to die, they were going to rise up and join the enemy. Every single person who died would be a potential enemy combatant they'd have to fight later, only much stronger than your average human, elf, gnome, or dwarf. Although he didn't know Mal'Ganis was going to show up to claim them, he knew that he had no way to fight this otherwise. There was no time for masks or for quarantines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    That poster has also been trying to rationalize it by turning it into an equation. No, they don't think civilian lives have much weight if they're killed under the guise of "quick and painless". It's meant to a be a textbook example of the best intentions being used to excuse the unforgivable. As soon as you start weighing lives and make unilateral decisions for how people SHOULD die, you've stopped thinking of them as people.

    If you want to go by how it's presented in lore, it was the wrong move. Uther and Jaina made the right call, something backed up by other characters who were afforded more hindsight than those who were there.

    If you want to try and frame it in a more real world sense as other posters have then it was still the wrong move, and would have been EVEN MORE horrible than the simplified way it's presented in the story.
    This is also similar to the Train Trolley question. To me, the right answer is the one that leads to the least suffering. Do you kill your friend (or the one person, depends on the version), or do you kill the five people on the other track? You kill your friend to save the five. Arthas was trying to kill the one (Stratholme) to save the five (everywhere else).

    Quote Originally Posted by intenz View Post
    He should have locked the gates and let the grain-eating degenerates die off.
    Would they die? They were undead as a result, and the scourge has shown a tendency not to just die off.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium View Post
    Strath was a city of thousands (likely tens with later retcons) with people turning all over it at the time, there would be no way to cover all of it or even most of the city and split the population up to be manageable unless they had like the whole army there.
    Ya know maybe that's where my disconnect is coming from. I am envisioning it from the game's POV where we see dozens of people, not thousands, but you make a good point.

  10. #150
    The Insane Daemos daemonium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    16,632
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    Ya know maybe that's where my disconnect is coming from. I am envisioning it from the game's POV where we see dozens of people, not thousands, but you make a good point.
    Ya the games being so down scaled often causes problems like that, we see like 4 building when in reality those are suppose to be a full functioning town.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post

    there is no real life analogy because zombies are not fucking real
    This is the only real answer here.
    RTX 3090 - Ryzen 9 5900x - LG 38GL950G-B
    Samsung Q950TS - Bose Lifestyle 650 - PlayStation 5 - Nintendo Switch

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    This is also similar to the Train Trolley question. To me, the right answer is the one that leads to the least suffering. Do you kill your friend (or the one person, depends on the version), or do you kill the five people on the other track? You kill your friend to save the five. Arthas was trying to kill the one (Stratholme) to save the five (everywhere else).
    Well the reason the train trolley question kind of works is because it sets parameters where only two options are possible. The train is on tracks that it can't deviate from so there is no subtlety or nuance as to the two outcomes.

    Arthas has a decent amount of information, more than Jaina and Uther for sure, but he isn't omnipotent to the point where he can narrow the scenario to only two outcomes. So no, I wouldn't really say they're all that similar.

    I'd also argue that the Trolley Problem isn't about choosing the right answer. Both options are wrong and it's just a matter of reducing it to math rather than lives.

  13. #153
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    22,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    The point is you're projecting what you want onto other people who can make decisions for themselves which might not match your own. If you're the one acting on those decisions, as Arthas was, then you're robbing other people of their agency (and their lives).
    It's pretty common mortality that it's better to have something die painlessly then to suffer
    I hope to fuck you don't own pets if you think ethunising a dying pet is an evil thing.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Well the reason the train trolley question kind of works is because it sets parameters where only two options are possible. The train is on tracks that it can't deviate from so there is no subtlety or nuance as to the two outcomes.

    Arthas has a decent amount of information, more than Jaina and Uther for sure, but he isn't omnipotent to the point where he can narrow the scenario to only two outcomes. So no, I wouldn't really say they're all that similar.

    I'd also argue that the Trolley Problem isn't about choosing the right answer. Both options are wrong and it's just a matter of reducing it to math rather than lives.
    The whole point of the trolley problem is a situation where "right answer" simply isn't an option. Yet Arthas managed to find a way to make the situation worse by first creating bad blood with the engineers and then jumping the trolley out of the track and hitting all 6 people after he already ran over the one.

    Semi-related because trolley problem: SMBC.

  15. #155
    one issue is how the events of stratholme have been portrayed. In WC3 its portrayed as him indiscriminately murdering everyone and burning their homes, with the cutscene later showing the piles of burning bodies. Uther shows up and obviously is extremely pissed. its not entirely clear how far the plague had spread at that point. In WoW though, its clear that literally the entire city was undead by the time the killing started, so no moral quandry

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    He wasn't wrong at all. Uther was. I know it sounds awful, but it wasn't like they had a cure. It wasn't like they had a plan, or a way to combat this. The only way was to purge the city to save the rest.
    Problem is he had no idea who was infected and who was safe in the city.

    Wiping everyone out was probably not the best solution on an ethical stand-point. Even worst considering him, as the Prince, as their ruler-to-be.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    It's pretty common mortality that it's better to have something die painlessly then to suffer
    I hope to fuck you don't own pets if you think ethunising a dying pet is an evil thing.
    No, it's not a common "morality" to make that decision for another person who is still capable of deciding for themselves. It's a selfish abuse of power, plain and simple.

    Oh, and pets aren't people. Did I seriously have to say that? And YOU were telling ME to get over myself? Wtf...
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2021-03-24 at 06:57 PM.

  18. #158
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    That poster has also been trying to rationalize it by turning it into an equation. No, they don't think civilian lives have much weight if they're killed under the guise of "quick and painless". It's meant to a be a textbook example of the best intentions being used to excuse the unforgivable. As soon as you start weighing lives and make unilateral decisions for how people SHOULD die, you've stopped thinking of them as people.
    Wrong. Everyone in Stratholme were going to die, regardless of action taken. There were no saving those who consumed the grain, and there was no way of knowing who ate it, and who did not. The only two options were: should they be given a quick, painless death, or let them suffer the turning to undeath, become mindless undead and kill those around them.

    If you want to go by how it's presented in lore, it was the wrong move. Uther and Jaina made the right call, something backed up by other characters who were afforded more hindsight than those who were there.
    No, it was definitely the right move. Arthas saw what the grain could do, how it acted and how fast it acted. You can make the argument that Arthas did not properly communicate the situation to Uther, but his decision was the right one. It's no different than having to amputate an arm to prevent an infection from spreading. Read on necrotizing fasciitis a little.

    If you want to try and frame it in a more real world sense as other posters have then it was still the wrong move
    No, it wasn't. Unless you're going to argue that the "moral, right move" would be to let those people turn and risk killing everyone in the city who hasn't turned. Arthas and the paladins were understaffed with no resources or time to do anything else.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    This was apparently not the case - it would seem mass genocide is a hot button issue for the wow community.
    Unless Sylvanas does it. Then it's a-ok!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Well the reason the train trolley question kind of works is because it sets parameters where only two options are possible. The train is on tracks that it can't deviate from so there is no subtlety or nuance as to the two outcomes.

    Arthas has a decent amount of information, more than Jaina and Uther for sure, but he isn't omnipotent to the point where he can narrow the scenario to only two outcomes. So no, I wouldn't really say they're all that similar.

    I'd also argue that the Trolley Problem isn't about choosing the right answer. Both options are wrong and it's just a matter of reducing it to math rather than lives.
    Arthas knew enough:
    • The grain was cursed.
    • The victim shows no symptoms after consuming the grain.
    • The grain can turn the victims into undead very quickly.
    • The paladins with Uther were too few to properly figure out who ate the grain and who didn't in a sensible time limit.
    • The paladins with Uther did not have the resources to properly quarantine the city and separate every man, woman, children and animal from each other in a sensible time limit.

    The only two options left were: kill everyone to prevent the spread, or let them all suffer and turn into undead, and then spill over out of Stratholme in numbers the paladins were very ill-equipped to deal with.

    And remember: in the olden days, grain was basically the basis of everything people ate that wasn't a fruit or vegetable.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Wrong. Everyone in Stratholme were going to die, regardless of action taken. There were no saving those who consumed the grain, and there was no way of knowing who ate it, and who did not. The only two options were: should they be given a quick, painless death, or let them suffer the turning to undeath, become mindless undead and kill those around them.

    No, it was definitely the right move. Arthas saw what the grain could do, how it acted and how fast it acted. You can make the argument that Arthas did not properly communicate the situation to Uther, but his decision was the right one. It's no different than having to amputate an arm to prevent an infection from spreading. Read on necrotizing fasciitis a little.

    No, it wasn't. Unless you're going to argue that the "moral, right move" would be to let those people turn and risk killing everyone in the city who hasn't turned. Arthas and the paladins were understaffed with no resources or time to do anything else.
    Wrong. Arthas did not have the omnipotence to know that there were only two options (there were not), and he was also aware that his actions would involve killing innocent, uninfected people. His rationale was that they didn't have time to sort so they must all be killed. According to in game references, the orphanage was at least evacuated safely so there was indeed a way to save some instead of purging all.

    There's a big difference between amputating a limb and executing a person, which again goes back to the point that apparently neither you not Felplague really think of these civilians as people. "It's no different than having to amputate an arm". Seriously, do you not see the issue with that way of thinking?

    The right move would have been to help the people as best they could, and yes risk people turning in the process. Again, Arthas had enough forces at his command to kill thousands by going door to door across an entire city. He could have used those forces to instead save some, even if only a small portion. Saying "they were going to die anyway" isn't justification for taking it upon yourself to do the killing, even if you believe that for yourself that's the better way to go.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The only two options left were: kill everyone to prevent the spread, or let them all suffer and turn into undead, and then spill over out of Stratholme in numbers the paladins were very ill-equipped to deal with.
    He could have worked to secure small portions of the city with the forces he had. Evacuate and quarantine them, deal with the undead AS they turned in a more controlled environment. Even if it was just 1/10th of the population. Saved some instead of killing all.

    And in the end, his actions didn't even result in a positive outcome. Many of the innocents he killed rose as scourge anyway, and the city was ultimately overrun. His example lead to other similar atrocities committed by former paladins. He didn't eradicate the plague or halt its spread. It was just the first step he took to devalue the lives of others in service of his own ends.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2021-03-24 at 08:13 PM.

  20. #160
    Arthas basically was hit with a real world version of the philosophical trolley problem. He could kill people and save them, but they'd die by his hand. He could leave them be, but they would be given a fate worse than death if he had not acted. There really wasn't enough time to find another solution to the issue, he's not in the FF universe where you can do tons of side quests before the plot advances. So was his choice wrong?

    I think to determine whether he was right or wrong, you kind of have to look at it in a moral vs. logical light, between Arthas as a hero vs. Arthas as a ruler. Logically, there were no other good options. Ignoring the problem would guarantee the Scourge would run rampant, and there was no real way anyone would live. Purging the city there was probably the best thing to do for his people as well as the people of Azeroth. That's what a good ruler does, making tough & heartless decisions others might not be able to.

    But it certainly wasn't heroic. Heroes often tend to find other ways to resolve impossible issues, though not all work as they should. A hero would try to find another way, barricading the town while looking for a cure or the like. Such an option wasn't available, but it's hard to see Thrall purging Orgrimmar in the same fashion were such a plague to befall the Horde. He'd still try to find a way, even if there was little to no chance of it happening.

    That then is where I'd place it. I don't believe he was wrong, his choice was likely the best one there was. It was the choice a good ruler would make. But I don't believe he can be thought of as a hero after what he did in Stratholme.

Posting Permissions

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