Sinrus wrote:Obviously my example was oversimplified,
Oversimplified? You argued that nothing is evil in it's base state, so nothing can be oversimplified.
but if Joey had stolen the food from a beggar, then it's certainly wrong, even if he gave it to the children.
Why? On what basis do you make this statement?
However, if he stole it from Bill Gates it's a good action, since the children need it far more than he does.
So you are trying to define morality by need? Justify this.
All I see are proclamations but I see no method. On what basis do you claim that need is the determiner of good/evil? I don't know if you realize this or not, but this need argument is an argument for lawlessness and anarchy. If someone has something that I don't then I automatically have the right to take it according to the need argument. Or more succinctly, you argue that every single person in the world poorer than you has the right to take your stuff until you are poorer than everyone else, at which point the cycle repeats.
As for the arm argument, if there is any other way to obtain food without harming somebody, then ripping off body parts is evil.
Why? You claim to extrapolate morality, but what is you don't define very well the basic premise that justifies your assertions. Why does there have to be no other way to obtain food? If no actions are inherently good or bad, then there is no difference between stealing your bic pen or the arm that holds it. Certainly, the need argument means you should take from the most convenient source. So if there is a store 20 feet away, and money in your pocket and there is a man only two steps away. Then according to need, it is better to take the man's arm and eat it than go buy an apple. That way you save money, which you need.
But if that is the only source, and you somehow know that the arm's owner will survive and the limb will be enough to save the children from a horrible death, then it's acceptable.
Why does it need to be enough to save the children from a horrible death? Why not just because it's lunch time and they are hungry? Why not chop one of the kids up and feed him to the other kids and solve two problems at once? It's a lot harder to replace a middle-aged man than a 5 year old, but it takes 40 years to make a 40 year old. So society needs a 5 year old a lot less than a middle-aged man. So, Man keeps arm, and one less mouth to feed? Pure win according to the need principle.
Ansom's, Wanda's, Stanley's point of views are irrelevant. If your decrypting a Piker then what matters is that Piker's point of view.
If the Piker is already a GK unit, then the action is good,
unless Wanda is intending to use her new unit for some evil purpose.
Ohh, so you're on the "it's ok to kill a slave as long as it's my slave." side. Apparently, I won't be able to convince you otherwise, so moving on. You say evil purpose, but I don't see how you have a clear picture of the dividing line between good and evil.
When it's impossible to tell what the Piker wants, then we can only look at the thoughts of characters who we know more about.
It's only impossible to tell because the Piker wasn't asked.
I for one, believe in the evil of decryption in the current situation, because I believe that Wanda has some evil purpose in mind. And in the end, it's her view that really matters, because everyone else familiar with decryption is her slave.
Ahh, some hazy evil purpose, but we don't even have a clear definition of evil. By your definition, what has Wanda EVER done that is evil. She a pure innocent lamb according to the need argument. Someone else had something that she needed, so she moved the world until she got it. Now she has this army, but she obviously needs something else, maybe a queenship. What do you know, there's a convenient well defended city nearby. She could conquer it and claim herself queen. Rock on. We're pure good so far. But then there is no ruler of Erf and she really needs to rule Erf, so proceed from there. Pure as the driven snow Wanda is.
Meh, BC is more fun to argue with. You need to justify your claims. I did, BC has, and some others have. I disagree with BC, but at least he has a clear image in his head of what good and evil are. But I don't have anything to grasp with you. Just a bunch of random statements, this is evil, that is evil, but no clear definition that I can apply to any situation. As for mine, I already clarified what I call the definer of good and evil. It is empathy.
Anyway, not that the current discussion doesn't have lots of room to carry on, but when a new update comes out, I usually move directly on to the latest update thread. So not to put you guys off, or try to get the last word in, or any of that nonsense, instead I'll just say, lets pause this discussion, and pick it up again on the next thread it is relevant to. Because right now, I'm more interested in
Vurp and what his lie was,
than the morality of Wanda's actions. So feel free to refer to this post later and I'll be happy to pick up where we left off, when Wanda does her next dastardly act. We probably won't have to wait long, another comic update is due soon.
