WWYCD 101:A question of faith

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

In essence this is really just a prettied up Omelas scenario.

Strongly disagree. In this scenario, if they are right and the sacrifices are necessary, the victims are volunteers sacrificing themselves for family, friends and community. John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [KJV]

 

In Omelas, the victim not olny did not volunteer, but does not know others benefit from their torture, less they take some comfort from that.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Interesting question. Everyone should know the answer to this, though.

 

Thia will not interfere. That's not who he is; he certainly won't participate, he'd turn down the invitation, but he would most assuredly not get involved.

 

Jarome would likely try and convince the King/Queen (preferably Queen) to walk, instead of getting executed, since Jarome, while good, has no bind to anything resembling religion other than he gets dragged to services with Thia. However, if he can't convince the individual to walk, he'll let it go. It will really, really eat at him, but he'd let it go eventually.

 

Snow... hrm. What WOULD Snow do? Probably something unpublishable. As soon as I figure out what that would be, it's what he would do.

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

First of all, to whomever said this sacrifice would not be murder, I request you look up the definition of murder in a dictionary. Murder is, by definition, the unsanctioned taking of the life of a human being in a premeditated manner. ("Sanctioned" in this case would refer to two cases: First, the lawful execution of a condemned criminal; Second, an act of war. NEITHER OF THESE APPLY to this specific situation!)

 

Second, I cannot, for the life of me, think of any "hero" character of mine, PC or NPC, who would NOT interfere and rescue the victim (regardless of the victim's wishes). Being a hero means DOING THE RIGHT THING, REGARDLESS OF THE PERSONAL COST. (Now, the MANNER in which the rescue takes place, THAT would depend on the specific character in question...)

 

Oy! Here endeth the sermon!

Franklin

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

But it is sanctioned on this world, according its laws and traditions. The potential cost isn't personal; the hero in question stands to lose nothing since they can just leave. The cost (if any) will be born by the people on this world.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

But it is sanctioned on this world' date=' according its laws.[/quote']

 

I'll add to this - if the law of the world a character comes from is touted as morally superior to the laws of the world that character visits, then any PC from another world can kill people in the campaign world without it being murder, provided that it wouldn't have been considered murder by the laws of the world they came from.

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

But it is sanctioned on this world' date=' according its laws and traditions. [/quote']Thus, their "laws" are morally corrupt, and should -- nay MUST -- be opposed by anyone calling themself a true hero. PERIOD! This is the sentiment (with varying degrees of loquaciousness and/or eloquence) that will be espoused by any and all of my hero characters. Bottom line, that sacrifice is gonna be STOPPED!

 

Franklin

Who is NOT a Moral Relativist

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Thus' date=' their "laws" are morally corrupt, and should -- nay MUST -- be opposed by anyone calling themself a true hero. PERIOD! [/quote']

 

There is a difference between moral subjectivism/relativism and simply being able to acknowledge that you cannot be certain of the objective validity of your code of morality.

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

There is a difference between moral subjectivism/relativism and simply being able to acknowledge that you cannot be certain of the objective validity of your code of morality.

I am absolutely CERTAIN that it is immoral to kill another human being, when that human being is not an active threat to myself or any other third party. That's why I specified two (and only two) exceptions to my original statement: Executing a condemned criminal (who has presumably demonstrated that they are and will continue to be a threat to innocent persons); and Acts of War. Again, neither of these cases apply to the scenario stated. Therefore, each and every heroic character I've ever played would unanimously oppose this sacrifice.

 

(There WOULD be a "spirited" discussion, shall we say, amongst these characters on how to DISCOURAGE the villagers from ever trying to hold another such sacrifice...)

 

Franklin

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

I am absolutely CERTAIN that it is immoral to kill another human being' date=' when that human being is not an active threat to myself or any other third party.[/quote']

 

Your personal certainty, unfortunately, does not translate into objective validity.

 

That's why I specified two (and only two) exceptions to my original statement: Executing a condemned criminal (who has presumably demonstrated that they are and will continue to be a threat to innocent persons); and Acts of War.

 

Do you accept any other circumstances under which killing would not be murder?

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Your personal certainty' date=' unfortunately, does not translate into objective validity.[/quote']Yes, actually, it does. Can you prove otherwise?...

 

More seriously, yes, it does, because any society which does NOT espouse the sanctity of life to some degree and form is DOOMED TO FAILURE.

 

Do you accept any other circumstances under which killing would not be murder?

Self defense, or defense of a third party, which I would lump under "unofficial execution." For example, if someone was trying to kidnap a woman, and I had no other means of stopping the would-be kidnapper but my 9mm, well then, *BLAM*, one less kidnapper in this world.

 

Franklin

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Thus, their "laws" are morally corrupt, and should -- nay MUST -- be opposed by anyone calling themself a true hero. PERIOD! This is the sentiment (with varying degrees of loquaciousness and/or eloquence) that will be espoused by any and all of my hero characters. Bottom line, that sacrifice is gonna be STOPPED!

 

Franklin

Who is NOT a Moral Relativist

 

The corrupt law which asks that one person per village volunteer themselves to keep their village and world alive per year just might be the only way. That's the question. If such a situaction came to exist in his own world would the hero in question require that entire human race allow itself to become exstinct rather allow a willing 500,000 to sacrifice themselves?

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Yes' date=' actually, it does. Can you prove otherwise?...[/quote']

 

The underlying principle is fundamentally flawed. Example: another person has different ideas about what is moral, but they, too, are absolutely certain. Whenever the principle leads to two (or more) contradicting "truths", it becomes obvious that the principle does not guarantee objective truth.

 

More seriously' date=' yes, it does, because any society which does NOT espouse the sanctity of life to some degree and form is DOOMED TO FAILURE.[/quote']

 

Not all societies need do so in precisely the manner (degree and form) you have declared, though.

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Self defense, or defense of a third party, which I would lump under "unofficial execution." For example, if someone was trying to kidnap a woman, and I had no other means of stopping the would-be kidnapper but my 9mm, well then, *BLAM*, one less kidnapper in this world.

 

Franklin

 

The offering's deaths are to save every other person on the planet and completely voluntary. No one is "required" and if no one steps up, then everyone dies. The culture is question does value life, apparently enough that some of their people regularly give up their lives so that others may live.

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Not all societies need do so in precisely the manner (degree and form) you have declared' date=' though.[/quote']I challenge you to show me such a society, in today's world, which espouses the philosophy you've been citing. In every society on the face of this world, none of them permit ordinary citizens to kill people, except for the cases I've cited (execution; defense; war).

 

Tossing Down the Gauntlet

Franklin

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

The culture is question does value life' date=' apparently enough that some of their people regularly give up their lives so that others may live.[/quote']

 

But what if his character comes from a world where self-sacrifice is not sanctioned? Then, obviously, the people in that culture are morally corrupt, and should -- nay MUST -- be opposed by anyone calling themself a true hero. PERIOD!

 

 

Of course, if I have a character who comes from a world where self-defense is not a justification for murder, then upon encountering his it would become obvious that his so-called "hero" was morally corrupt, and should -- nay MUST -- be put down by mine and anyone else wanting to call themselves a "true hero". PERIOD!

 

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

The corrupt law which asks that one person per village volunteer themselves to keep their village and world alive per year just might be the only way. That's the question. If such a situaction came to exist in his own world would the hero in question require that entire human race allow itself to become exstinct rather allow a willing 500' date='000 to sacrifice themselves?[/quote']

If I recall correctly, the original scenario stated that the PCs do NOT have verification of any such "requirement." In any case, should the appropriate mystical proof be forthcoming, my characters would probably challenge it (as well as challenge the x-dim entity asking for these sacrifices; "Hey, you! Who the [bleep] died and made YOU god!?!").

 

Franklin

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

I challenge you to show me such a society' date=' in today's world, which espouses the philosophy you've been citing.[/quote']

 

Oh? And what philosophy is that, exactly?

 

Tossing Down the Gauntlet

 

Spoiling for a fight, youngster? You might want to curb your enthusiasm until you're sure you have an opponent, otherwise you're just making unnecessary enemies. I forgive you in this case, however, and turn the other cheek

 

__________________

No, Mightybec, I am not mooning him!

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

If I recall correctly' date=' the original scenario stated that the PCs do NOT have verification of any such "requirement." In any case, should the appropriate mystical proof be forthcoming, my characters would probably challenge it (as well as challenge the x-dim entity asking for these sacrifices; "Hey, you! Who the [bleep'] died and made YOU god!?!").

 

Franklin

 

The PCs in the original scenario have no proof one way or the other. The basically no nothing about the situation or the laws of this world. They would, in essence be gambling with lives of everyone on the planet on the basis of their "superior" morality over a voluntary self sacrifice. In essence, by choosing to interfere in this with no investigation one could ask them "Who the **** died and made you God?"

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Thus, their "laws" are morally corrupt, and should -- nay MUST -- be opposed by anyone calling themself a true hero. PERIOD! This is the sentiment (with varying degrees of loquaciousness and/or eloquence) that will be espoused by any and all of my hero characters. Bottom line, that sacrifice is gonna be STOPPED!

 

Franklin

Who is NOT a Moral Relativist

 

BRITANNUS (shocked).

Caesar: this is not proper.

 

THEODOTUS (outraged).

How!

 

CAESAR (recovering his self-possession).

Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

 

Caesar and Cleopatra - by George Bernard Shaw

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

I challenge you to show me such a society, in today's world, which espouses the philosophy you've been citing. In every society on the face of this world, none of them permit ordinary citizens to kill people, except for the cases I've cited (execution; defense; war).

 

Tossing Down the Gauntlet

Franklin

I challenge you to show me, in today's world, people who can fly unassisted, run 70 mph, have telekensis, can heal from a gunshot would with a good night's sleep, or lift a sperm whale while breathing underwater.

 

Until you do, can we consider the possibility that the world the characters exist in may be different from 21st century Earth?

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

First of all' date=' to whomever said this sacrifice would not be murder, I request you look up the definition of murder in a dictionary. Murder is, by definition, the unsanctioned taking of the life of a human being in a premeditated manner. ("Sanctioned" in this case would refer to two cases: First, the lawful execution of a condemned criminal; Second, an act of war. NEITHER OF THESE APPLY to this specific situation!) [/quote']

mur·der n The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

sanc·tioned tr.v To give official authorization or approval to

 

Hometown rules, their world, they make the laws.

 

Second' date=' I cannot, for the life of me, think of any "hero" character of mine, PC or NPC, who would NOT interfere and rescue the victim (regardless of the victim's wishes). Being a hero means DOING THE RIGHT THING, REGARDLESS OF THE PERSONAL COST. (Now, the MANNER in which the rescue takes place, THAT would depend on the specific character in question...) [/quote']

And if the sacrifices are unnecessary, you would be right. More lucky than smart, but right.

 

But in a reality where magic is demonstratably real, there is a possibility that the sacrifices are necessary to prevent something worse from happening. And in that case, it is not your PC's that would pay the cost, but the people of this village/world.

 

To show up in some place you've never heard of, presume you know better than the people who live there, and change by force their customs, without even an attempt to find out what will happen if the customs change, is not heroic. It's arrogant and reckless.

[fwcain]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Ref. #1:

The PCs in the original scenario have no proof one way or the other. The basically know nothing about the situation or the laws of this world.

Ref. #2:

They would be gambling with lives of everyone on the planet

By the dictates of logic, these two points negate one another. If the heroes do not have any substantive evidence to back the elders' claims of the "necessity" of this sacrifice, then there is in fact no gambling at all.

 

Furthermore, it appears to me that you may be operating under the misaprehension that my characters have doubts about the principles of Right and Wrong, Good vs. Evil, and/or the Sanctity of Life. They (and their player) have no such doubts. "We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident, that all (Persons) are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and that among these are: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." When you get right down to it, you either stand for something or against it. I stand for Life. I stand for Good. I stand for Being a Hero.

 

Franklin

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

By the dictates of logic' date=' these two points negate one another.[/quote']

 

Are you using an "objectively accepted" form of logic or another "personal belief system" form?

 

The PCs in the original scenario have no proof one way or the other. The basically know nothing about the situation or the laws of this world.

 

In this context "they" refers to the PC's. As in, the player characters - not the people who have lived in this world their whole lives. Those people believe that the sacrifices are necessary; their certainty has never been challenged.

 

If the heroes do not have any substantive evidence to back the elders' claims of the "necessity" of this sacrifice' date=' then there is in fact no gambling at all.[/quote']

 

What would be "substantive" evidence? I can say that you will die if you climb to the top of the mountain and leap off, but how can you be certain of this? If your own belief systems state that, where you come from, the gods live on a mountaintop and this is how to reach them, what does it matter what I am convinced of? Of course, your own belief can only be tested by a risk - will you dive off the mountaintop, or throw me off and then search for my remains at the bottom to see if I landed?

 

"We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident' date='[/quote']

 

Exactly. "We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident," but "they" didn't have any direct insight to objective reality, any more than you do.

 

When you get right down to it' date=' you either stand for something or against it. I stand for Life. I stand for Good. I stand for Being a Hero.[/quote']

 

Pretty words. Extremely vague, but just the type of thing that the common people like to hear when their local politician steps up to preach. We're not common people, though. We're intelligent, and well-educated, and we like to hear what, exactly, you think is "life" and "good" and "being a hero", so we don't give you our blessings in what might turn out to be great evil done in the name of the things we revere.

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Ref. #1:

Ref. #2:

By the dictates of logic, these two points negate one another. If the heroes do not have any substantive evidence to back the elders' claims of the "necessity" of this sacrifice, then there is in fact no gambling at all.

 

Yes there is. Lack of "evidence" that something is true is not prove that is it not until it is tested or observed. The only "proof" you could have in this situation is to have arrived on dead planet and found a note that "Ok, maybe stopping that ritual WASN'T such a great idea" on it.The PCs have no evidence that they are not required except a guess about process they don't know anything about. Conversly, the locals take as evidence there world still exists as reason that they are. You would be essentially demanding that to fit your idea of what is "moral" that they put a gun to their collective heads and pull the trigger on your assurance that that its not loaded but you've never checked the gun. And if they don't you are going to force them too.

 

Furthermore, it appears to me that you may be operating under the misaprehension that my characters have doubts about the principles of Right and Wrong, Good vs. Evil, and/or the Sanctity of Life. They (and their player) have no such doubts. "We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident, that all (Persons) are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and that among these are: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." When you get right down to it, you either stand for something or against it. I stand for Life. I stand for Good. I stand for Being a Hero.

 

Franklin

 

No I hold that your character are uttely sure that morality superiority gives them the right to enforce their dicates on population regardless of the possible impact and their utter lack of knowledge about the situation, which is particularly unheroic since it holds absolutely no risk for them.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Actually' date=' Trebuchet, No its not a "prettied up" Omelas scenario and frankly I'm getting a little tired of people saying that it is.[/quote']Too bad. Sorry, but this is just a variation on Omelas no matter how much you try to deny it or pretty it up. These people are deliberately killing people they know to be innocent in order to preserve their way of life. That's evil by any definition - period. In fact, given the fact they annually murder tens of thousands of innocent people they may actually be worse than the people in Omelas. (At least some people in Omelas decided the price was too high and left the city. I see no indication of that here.)

 

So I'll be blunt: If it was me (and not my character Zl'f, who is both more naïve and more idealistic than I am) I would say the destruction of this civilization is the proper price to pay to stop these evil people from enjoying said civilization. What they're doing is flatout wrong, and it must be stopped. I'm not going to accept that all cultures are equally valid and so must be respected and/or tolerated. These people are behaving in an objectively selfish and evil manner, and if the price that must be paid to end that evil once and for all is the potential destruction of that people then that's the right thing to do.