Werewolf attacks palace event - what does it do?

[Ulysseslotro]

OK, I haven't participated in this thread for a while, but now that it is, again, on topic, I feel I have to say that this particular option of not closing the gate is, at least, illogical and not Evil.

The whole point of goodness involve making moral decissions that will benefit as many people as possible without murdering unsuspected/not involved individuals.

So, the gate issue. You close the gate. You save as many as possible, you cannot do anything for the one already in danger, thus involved individual. The decission is morally sound. The action should be classified as good.

The throwing off the balcony. IF you throw someone off the balcony, you will save 5 people, but you will murder an unsuspected/not involved individual. Perhaps a leader would justify such an action for doing it for the greater good but Morally is unacceptable. This action should be classified as Evil according to morality standards, since you activelly bring harm to someone that was not in anyway involved to the incident that caused him to lose his life because of your, intentional, actions. The intentional is specified, to stress that it was not an accident.

I agree if you throw someone off a balcony and the effect is murder, that is evil.

But if you throw one off the balcony and they survive and all the rest survive, the act would have been risky but good.

The slow guy is innocent as well. You save the ones that will die because of him by murdering him. This doesn't make you good. It makes you a smart leader, but not a good person. That is why your conscience will not leave you alone for the rest of your life if you choose to close that gate. You still murdered an innocent man, regardless of the consequences your inaction would lead to.

The slow guy isn't innocent at all. It is just a guy trying to survive but is too slow to make it in time. There is nothing you can do to save him, rather you keep the gate open, close it, jump down, call a lightning storm out of your arse and fireballs from your eyes. His fate is sealed.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The slow guy is innocent as well. You save the ones that will die because of him by murdering him. This doesn't make you good. It makes you a smart leader, but not a good person. That is why your conscience will not leave you alone for the rest of your life if you choose to close that gate. You still murdered an innocent man, regardless of the consequences your inaction would lead to.

No my friend. He will die because he was slow. Why the others should meet his fate? It does not make me a smart leader. It makes me a good person in all aspects.
The loss of the one that was too slow to make it to the gate is a tragedy, but the loss of everyone because of his fault is unbearable. He is not innocent. He is involved. He is the one that is going to bring harm to everyone. If someone has to die, it is better to be the one that brings the doom to everyone else.

 

[Honor]

No my friend. He will die because he was slow. Why the others should meet his fate? It does not make me a smart leader. It makes me a good person in all aspects.
The loss of the one that was too slow to make it to the gate is a tragedy, but the loss of everyone because of his fault is unbearable. He is not innocent. He is involved. He is the one that is going to bring harm to everyone. If someone has to die, it is better to be the one that brings the doom to everyone else.

If there is absolutely no chance of him getting to the gate before the werewolves reach him, this is no debate at all as they will tear him apart right then and there and there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

However if there is a chance that he can reach the gate in time and you take it away from him by closing the gate, you are effectively murdering him. He is both involved *and* innocent. Being weak or at a disadvantage does not justify sacrificing a person for the well being of the rest of the society.

 

[Honor]

The slow guy isn't innocent at all. It is just a guy trying to survive but is too slow to make it in time. There is nothing you can do to save him, rather you keep the gate open, close it, jump down, call a lightning storm out of your arse and fireballs from your eyes. His fate is sealed.

Then there is no real moral dilemma here.

By the way, what makes you guys think and say the slow guy is not "innocent" anyway?

 

[Thunder_Gr]

If there is absolutely no chance of him getting to the gate before the werewolves reach him, this is no debate at all as they will tear him apart right then and there and there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

However if there is a chance that he can reach the gate in time and you take it away from him by closing the gate, you are effectively murdering him. He is both involved *and* innocent. Being weak or at a disadvantage does not justify sacrificing a person for the well being of the rest of the society.

This is excactly what the point is. According to the dellima, there is a chance that the werewolf will pass by him to kill the others.
Again, there is no sacrificing an innocent. You save lives, you do not take one. You do not kill the slow guy, you protect the 5 that made it. Again, the consequences of an action(being slow) have to fall on the one that acts(the one guy) and not on the ones that avoid this course of action(5 that made it). You close the gate, and, while you mourn for the loss of the slow person, even though it was his fault, you know you did the best you could.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Then there is no real moral dilemma here.

By the way, what makes you guys think and say the slow guy is not "innocent" anyway?

He is not "innocent" in the sense that
1) He is involved in a situation that can/will cause his and other people's death
2) While the rest have managed to avoid the danger, his inability is now endagering them and, while they can escape with their lives, they are now going to die because of him

 

[Thunder_Gr]

But if you throw one off the balcony and they survive and all the rest survive, the act would have been risky but good.

Well, it is clearly known that he will die. In addition he is unsuspected, so there is no way to make it alive. Plus, the event clearly states he is going to be "sacrificed".

 

[Furin]

It's the old problem of whom is the judge of whom, who is worthy of living and who is not and how much is the "survival of the, at that time and standards, fittest" and the benefit for the "community", an argument often used and abused, a valid reason to exterminate those who are not strong or organized, aka with a strong lobby, enough to defend themselfs.

I say let the men fight together and die together, or win against the odds, it is the better thing to do. I'll attend their funerals personally, hold a speech about their brave battle, and give my city a 10 turns happyness boost.

Edit: Somehow this event reminds me of the old joke about how fast you must run when meeting a bear while hiking with your friend. The answer is, not faster than the bear, just faster than your friend... In reality the bear will run away from your loud ghettoblaster music (yeah I know you kids use Ipods these days and get eaten) before you meet him anyway.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

It's the old problem of whom is the judge of whom, who is worthy of living and who is not and how much is the "survival of the, at that time and standards, fittest" and the benefit for the "community", an argument often used and abused, a valid reason to exterminate those who are not strong or organized, aka with a strong lobby, enough to defend themselfs.

I say let the men fight together and die together, or win against the odds, it is the better thing to do. I'll attend their funerals personally, hold a speech about their brave battle, and give my city a 10 turns happyness boost.

Of course this is not about the close the gate issue, since this is not about the survival of the fittest, but how to prevent one person's inability bring the doom to all.

 

[Honor]

He is not "innocent" in the sense that
1) He is involved in a situation that can/will cause his and other people's death
2) While the rest have managed to avoid the danger, his inability is now endagering them and, while they can escape with their lives, they are now going to die because of him

But, he is innocent in the sense that he didn't do anything wrong. Yes, he is involved in a situation that can/will cause his and other people's death, yes, he was unable to avoid danger, and yes he has become a liability, but he is still innocent.

Now that you have reminded me of the actual dilemma, let's see how it goes:

- Werewolves are chasing 4 fast guys and 1 slow guy
- The slow guy has no chance of surviving the situation any way you choose to act
- The fast guys will survive if you close the gate after them, and won't if you don't.

Conclusion: This is a false dilemma. The slow guy's life does not depend on your decision, only the fast guys' lives do. If you close the gate, you're good, if you don't you're evil or just plain stupid. So I agree with you, but on different grounds (I don't believe the slow guy deserves to die just because he's slow and becomes a liability).

 

[Furin]

Maybe those 4 faster guys are all serial killers, kick little puppets for fun and are all very bad for society in their ways. And the one who is so slow and "holding up everyone" will invent the mananodeless casting for dummies the next day.

Who is to judge who is "worthy"? You see, all that "greater benefit for society and the good of all that is righteous and holy" is all but propaganda anyway. When you strip away the lametta it's just about killing someone, or a group of people, because you can.

Like in portal "we do what we must, because we can"

There is but one option missing in that event that would help so much, namely tell the fricken cowards who are running so fast to turn around and fight and either help their buddy to escape or go down trying.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

But, he is innocent in the sense that he didn't do anything wrong. Yes, he is involved in a situation that can/will cause his and other people's death, and yes, he was unable to avoid danger, yes he has become a liability, but he is still innocent.

Now that you have reminded me of the actual dilemma, let's see how it goes:

- Werewolves are chasing 4 fast guys and 1 slow guy
- The slow guy has no chance of surviving the situation any way you choose to act
- The fast guys will survive if you close the gate after them, and won't if you don't.

Conclusion: This is a false dilemma. The slow guy's life does not depend on your decision, only the fast guys' lives do. If you close the gate, you're good, if you don't you're evil or just plain stupid. So I agree with you, but on different grounds (I don't believe the slow guy deserves to die just because he's slow and becomes a liability).

Again, I did not say he deserves to die!!! I said if someone has to die, then it should be the one that will cause the death of others.
The event says that the werewolf will ignore the slow and get the fast guys. The slow is supposed to live.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Maybe those 4 faster guys are all serial killers, kick little puppets for fun and are all very bad for society in their ways. And the one who is so slow and "holding up everyone" will invent the mananodeless casting for dummies the next day.

Who is to judge who is "worthy"? You see, all that "greater benefit for society and the good of all that is righteous and holy" is all but propaganda anyway. When you strip away the lametta it's just about killing someone, or a group of people, because you can.

Like in portal "we do what we must, because we can"

There is but one option missing in that even that would help so much, namely tell the fricken cowards who are running so fast to turn around and fight and either help their buddy to escape or go down trying.

The event is specific and presents a situation and 2 options. They are not serial killers and the one is not better or worst than the five. While, normally, this should have been all or the one, situation, the event presents it as 5 or the 1. And you have to decide your action.

Edit: The propaganda you mention fits perfectly the "Throw man off the balcony" version of the event, though.

 

[Ulysseslotro]

Then there is no real moral dilemma here.

By the way, what makes you guys think and say the slow guy is not "innocent" anyway?

A better question would be. Why is he innocent in this case? The guilty party is not the Gate closer. It is the Werewolves.

Here some blame game about what happened.

1) He was Slothful and not fit which could have been the cause of his death. In which case that is his own fault.
2) He could have been old and just slow from old age, but is knowingly in dangerous areas without a protector. Again he is his own fault.
3) He tripped an fell, and the cause of his death was a rock and bad footing. Blame it on nature, the worker who built the road, or his own fault for not being fit enough to run through a trip.
4) The Werewolves will get to him even if the gate is closed at the last second.
5) The man closing the gate trying to save as many lives as possible.
6) The Werewolves crippled the guy, allowed him to escape in an attempt to see if the Gate closer would be morally stupified as to the right course of action, thereby allowing them to enter into the town and slaughter all in their wake.

If your in a position of leadership during war time, I hope you see that #6 is what you should be thinking. Always assume the worst. So, your only option is to close the gate at the last minute. If he doesn't make it in time, that is no fault of your own. Other circumstances caused that.

 

[Furin]

I fail to see the difference. Imagine yourself as the slowpoke, you think you are save, at least for the moment, and suddenly the gate goes down and the werewolf turns around and munches you alive while your "friends" are watching from behind the bars instead of helping you, just because you leader decided it's better that way. Whats so good about that? I think the only one who can make the decision in that time is the slow man himself, if he chooses to sacrify himself for the greater good and yells "close the gates" it's discussably good and noble by him, but someone else making a decision can only fail morally. But then again, as a leader you have to make tough choices right?


I am a real fan of that event, so much fuss about a thing that doesn't even give you happy faces for some turns

 

[Honor]

Again, I did not say he deserves to die!!! I said if someone has to die, then it should be the one that will cause the death of others.
The event says that the werewolf will ignore the slow and get the fast guys. The slow is supposed to live.

If the dilemma wants us to make a choice between saving the 4 guys or the 1 guy, a morally absolutist "good" person would not choose to act to save either. A consequentialist would probably make a choice, and dub the choice they made as "good" by giving a specific reason depending on the choice they made (i.e. saved more lives, the slow guy was a liability, the slow guy was more valuable to the society than the 4 guys I sacrificed, etc.). As I pointed out earlier it all boils down to the fundamental debate between acting on principles and acting on consequences.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I fail to see the difference. Imagine yourself as the slowpoke, you think you are save, at least for the moment, and suddenly the gate goes down and the werewolf turns around and munches you alive while your "friends" are watching from behind the bars instead of helping you, just because you leader decided it's better that way. Whats so good about that? I think the only one who can make the decision in that time is the slow man himself, if he chooses to sacrify himself for the greater good and yells "close the gates" it's discussably good and noble by him, but someone else making a decision can only fail morally. But then again, as a leader you have to make tough choices right?


I am a real fan of that event, so much fuss about a thing that doesn't even give you happy faces for some turns

OK, I imagine myself, as you say, being chased by the werewolf. I see I limb, my foot hurts, and I cannot keep up with the others. There, at the gate, there is the leader, waiting for us, yelling and encouraging us to reach to the safety. I can hear the werewolf behind me, then, he hits me, dropping me to the ground and rashes to catch the others before they make it to the gate.
You tell me now, what should I expect?
a) The leader will leave the gate open so that I get up and run somewhere that the werewolf will not get me?
b)The leader will close the gate and the werewolf will turn on me.

I don't know about you, but I would 100% expect the leader to close the gate. I would do so!

If the dilemma wants us to make a choice between saving the 4 guys or the 1 guy, a morally absolutist "good" person would not choose to act to save either. A consequentialist would probably make a choice, and dub the choice they made as "good" by giving a specific reason depending on the choice they made (i.e. saved more lives, the slow guy was a liability, the slow guy was more valuable to the society than the 4 guys I sacrificed, etc.). As I pointed out earlier it all boils down to the fundamental debate between acting on principles and acting on consequences.

I think that there is a bit of confusion about what does it mean that someone endangers others. And how this is different than someone not endagering someone else.

 

[Ulysseslotro]

If the dilemma wants us to make a choice between saving the 4 guys or the 1 guy, a morally absolutist "good" person would not choose to act to save either. A consequentialist would probably make a choice, and dub the choice they made as "good" by giving a specific reason depending on the choice they made (i.e. saved more lives, the slow guy was a liability, the slow guy was more valuable to the society than the 4 guys I sacrificed, etc.). As I pointed out earlier it all boils down to the fundamental debate between acting on principles and acting on consequences.

Thats why my first post in this thread was the correct one. It would not be up to myself to determine if I was right or wrong. It would be up to the townsfolk that ultimately decide which was right or wrong. And closing the gate was more plausable of the answers.

If you close the gate the Townsfolk grab their pitchforks and hunt some Werewolves.
If you don't close the gate the Townsfolk grab their pitchforks and hunt you.

 

[Honor]

A better question would be. Why is he innocent in this case? The guilty party is not the Gate closer. It is the Werewolves.

Here some blame game about what happened.

1) He was Slothful and not fit which could have been the cause of his death. In which case that is his own fault.
2) He could have been old and just slow from old age, but is knowingly in dangerous areas without a protector. Again he is his own fault.
3) He tripped an fell, and the cause of his death was a rock and bad footing. Blame it on nature, the worker who built the road, or his own fault for not being fit enough to run through a trip.
4) The Werewolves will get to him even if the gate is closed at the last second.
5) The man closing the gate trying to save as many lives as possible.
6) The Werewolves crippled the guy, allowed him to escape in an attempt to see if the Gate closer would be morally stupified as to the right course of action, thereby allowing them to enter into the town and slaughter all in their wake.

If your in a position of leadership during war time, I hope you see that #6 is what you should be thinking. Always assume the worst. So, your only option is to close the gate at the last minute. If he doesn't make it in time, that is no fault of your own. Other circumstances caused that.

He is innocent in the sense that he deserves to be saved just as much as any other guy. He may even be a serial killer, but we are not interested in that in this dilemma. Just because he happened to be the man getting left behind in an extraordinary situation is no reason for throwing morality out the window, neither does it mean he is less worthy of being saved.

 

[Furin]

Yes totally, but forseeing the consequences of your actions to an absolute certainty is only possible with precognition, no? And acting without the principles you have created in your brain since the day you were born is kinda hard too. You will choose, what you think is right, because you have no other choice and thus enforce your morals on others, again because you have the upper hand at that time as leader. Would the moral dilemma change in any way if your decision to close the gate could save the "City gate Orphanage" with all those little, defenseless kids, conveniently build in the outskirts where they will not bother the cities market activities with their crying and whining? An elected leader will propably choose the option that grants him the most favor in the next election while a vampire leader will just go out there and kick the werewolfs butt (because he is messing with his afternoon snack)