Werewolf attacks palace event - what does it do?

[mortus]

Oh, whose talking ifs and maybes now, you cant possibly know that there would have been another war mortus. Germany is profoundly diffrent, what with its ruler being completly mad and refusing any sort of surrender beyond all reason. As history plainly tells us, the japanese emperor wasnt quite so willing to have every man, woman and child wiped out, as Hitler was.

Have you read the Potsdam Declaration? It's not as "unconditional" as you guys might think...The only part that is "unconditional" is the surrender of the armed forces. It is not a question of if or maybe, whether or not Japan would have continued fighting, they would have.

1. What sources do you have that state that the Potsdam declaration was unreasonable?
2. What sources do you have that state that Japan would accept a different form of surrender?

Look, a lot of bad things were done in WWII, not many of which should be called morally sound, Trumans decision included.

What decision was morally sound during this period of time? Give me some alternatives for Truman, besides dropping the a-bomb, that were morally sound?

 

[mortus]

Now we come down to the real reason why I have such a serious problem with the war is necessary arguement. You may know this but there is a lot of us and we are still becoming more at an alarming rate. Now, geografical theory says that population growth rises exponetially but the means to support population rises proportionately (dont even know if that is the right word). This means that eventually there will be a god-awefull mess of things, luckily we allready have the the most likely solutions: desease, famine, starvation and wars. The sooner we stop argueing that massmurder is necessary the better, because it will be a very tempting solution to all our problems. Hell, its allready started to some degree, the real arguement for going into Iraq was "they have oil, we need oil, therefore war is necessary". (Im sorry of dragging the U.S. into this again, but im also slapping my own country for supporting it.) You know us, you have seen how we solve our problems, we dont try to think of new ways to fix things, we build bombs.

Human nature sucks, lets try to change, we havent exactly tried real hard, now have we?

As i have now gone complety off the map offtopic, I will call it a night here and simply finish off with this.

In the evil event, I would draw upon my very own law of nature, the idea that causing harm, will result in more harm. Therefore I would do nothing, sure that would mean that the 5 people die, but it wouldnt be at my hands. That is all I can do.

You provide a statement about the outcome of the traditional Malthusian catastrophe, and you acknowledge that the "solution" is disease, famine, starvation..etc.

You say this is the natural chain of events, and you want us to change...right?

Well the problem is that this train of thought inevitably ends up with these questions...

Who gets to reproduce?
How are resources divided out?

 

[mortus]

I guess you would first have to accept that there is violence in the world because we are violent by nature and that there is nothing you can do to stop it but I refuse to accept that. I suppose that makes me somewhat of an utopian dreamer.

Imagine this scenario. There is a boulder tumbling down a hill. There are 6 people on the hill, 5 people are really close to the rope for an easy escape, one person is a bit farther away. You can either yell at the 5 to warn them and they will all escape death, or you can yell at the one person and he will be able to escape. You can't save both groups, either the group of 5 or the solo guy, or they will all die. Are you saying you wouldn't choose between the two groups?

 

[MetalMilitia-]

Mortus this would be the equilivent of the neutral good event where you drop the portculis. If you read back my stance on that was pretty clear. You are not killing 1 person, you are saving 5 others, the 1 person is a victim of circumstance not by you.

Ranos, ill highlight the keyphrase

Ok, let me rephrase my statement that human beings are not violent by nature, it was a bit hastily written, quite frankly, I dont know that but I know we dont have to be.

Whether we choose to act violently is intirely up to us, not our nature.

What it really boils down to is an egg/chicken problem. Do we act violently because of our nature or do we act violently because we choose to accept our nature as violent.

 

[cvlowe]

As for the nuke issue: Japan knew it would lose the war. If you HAD to drop the bomb, I personally would need inreputeable evidence of a heavy loss of soldiers lives from invasion. Bombing an island nearby within sight of the mainland with stuff all loss of life would have been a better option, so that the Japanese could survey the damage after, and watch the devastating mushroom. It could then follow up by a threat that you would bomb a city (and giving them time to evacuate). A third bomb would then be dropped over a city later with no warning if they did not surrender (thus time between the bombings to mill over surrender). As for the war, its justification is always decided by the winner. Isn't it ironic that the Japanese were trialed for War Crimes, while yet no one was trialed for dropping NUKES?

This argument is flawed. We only had TWO bombs at the time- there was no third one. But Japan didn't know that.

Keyeth, I am sorry if i came off sarcastic, that was not my intent, I did find your use of judicial terms pretty laughable. Sorry but they are. My reason for saying this is that some laws go against morality. Example: Is it moral to allow people to have leathal weapons? Studies have shown that guns do kill more people than they save.

This is just a flat lie. It is a FACT that states with a higher percentage of people carrying guns have drastically lower violent crime rates.

And one fact I'm surprised nobody has mentioned in the whole WWII debate- the US was actively trying to stay out of the war until Japan mounted the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[notque]

The Chief Justice explicitly stated at the Nuremberg Trials that we were handing the defendants a poisoned chalice in reference to the rules of the trials.

You could defend yourself by proving that the Axis committed the same crime you did.

And the US was not actively trying to stay out of the war, they were involved in several levels.

And it is not a fact that a higher percentage of people carrying guns have drastically lowered violent crime rates. It is a fact that a higher percentage of the population carrying guns increases the rate of deaths by firearms.

But werewolves.

 

[Honor]

I can't believe there are people enjoying life on this planet that consider mass murder a morally acceptable solution to a problem. Would it still be a viable solution if you and your loved ones were the people being murdered? If you say yes, you are a hypocrite.

If you don't have the moral background to willingly sacrifice your own and your loved ones' lives to save others, you have no place saying sacrificing hundreds to save thousands is morally sound.

 

[Darksaber1]

This thread...It's....It's Alive (screams)

 

[PaleJackal]

Keyeth, I am sorry if i came off sarcastic, that was not my intent, I did find your use of judicial terms pretty laughable. Sorry but they are. My reason for saying this is that some laws go against morality. Example: Is it moral to allow people to have leathal weapons? Studies have shown that guns do kill more people than they save.

This is just a flat lie. It is a FACT that states with a higher percentage of people carrying guns have drastically lower violent crime rates.

Yeah, and the U.K. and Australia have had an increase in homicides after banning firearms. There could be other reasons, besides the gun ban, but knives are really easy to obtain in the US at least, and I've heard that if you're going to be robbed: it's better to robbed by someone with a gun than someone with a knife. That makes a certain degree of sense, people are intimidated by guns and I've heard that being a gun owner can be a bad idea, since you feel like you're some hotshot when you get robbed, so I assume the same applies to criminal gun owners who are doing the robbing. Also, with a knife, you either stab them when you're up close or not at all, a gun is still a threat at range. Since most violence is perpetrated by young males, the cheap and easy access to a knife might account for it... combined with the fact that the knife is now the "biggest weapon on the block" for any law abiding citizen.

Of course, now all we have to do is ban knives.

 

[KillerClowns]

Guns. A messy topic that even I'm not pugnacious enough to get started on. Organizations for and against brandish lies, damned lies and statistics at an alarming rate, manipulating numbers and misrepresenting facts at a ludicrous rate. I'd start demanding numbers to back up the claims made, but both sides would swing out their own sets of facts, almost but not quite contradicting each other outright, and then accuse the other side of misrepresenting the facts for their own gain.

 

[civ_king]

OMG WTH this is FfH 2 not the history forum, WTH

 

[Darksaber1]

While I wouldn't neccesserily agree with civ king's language, I do think an off topic thread would be a more appropriate place for this conversation.

 

[Ulysseslotro]

I have gotten both of them as neutral. That's why I'm thinking it's supposed to effect your alignment.

As a good leader, you get the good werewolf attack (Close the gate and sacrifice one guy to save the rest or leave the gate open and take the chance that they will all die).
1. Close the gate, you change to neutral.
2. Leave the gate open and you stay good.

I don't think it's evil to protect your citizens. If you 'do nothing' your choosing your personal philosophies over helping man. In that case I would think leaving the gate open so that more peons get ripped to shreds by the werewolves would be evil.

Think of it this way, what sounds more plausable by the town citizens after the assault. "He closed the gate in time but mr. x died anyways, he killed one to save the rest, lets torch the castle!" OR "He didn't close the gate at all, he doesn't care to protect us, he let those werewolves slaughter them, it was a massacre, lets torch the castle!"

In this scenario you can see what the town folk think, obviously you leave the gate open they would think their ruler is evil or neutral for not caring, some would even believe he did it on purpose too and orchestrated the entire event. He closes the gate they aren't going to blame him for saving who he could save, maybe even saving the entire town. So the correct answer is close the gate.

The hypothetical question is wrong in assuming you'll know the outcome before it happens. I save X amount of citizens, it might have been you save All but one of your Citizens from the attacks by the werewolves by closing your gate. Obviously, the greater good is to save as many as possible.

It's not your fault the attack occured in the first place, it is your job to protect those you can. If you can't protect the fat slow guy, or the guy already injured by the werewolves, then so be it, you won't get blamed for his death.

 

[Honor]

I don't think it's evil to protect your citizens. If you 'do nothing' your choosing your personal philosophies over helping man. In that case I would think leaving the gate open so that more peons get ripped to shreds by the werewolves would be evil.

Think of it this way, what sounds more plausable by the town citizens after the assault. "He closed the gate in time but mr. x died anyways, he killed one to save the rest, lets torch the castle!" OR "He didn't close the gate at all, he doesn't care to protect us, he let those werewolves slaughter them, it was a massacre, lets torch the castle!"

In this scenario you can see what the town folk think, obviously you leave the gate open they would think their ruler is evil or neutral for not caring, some would even believe he did it on purpose too and orchestrated the entire event. He closes the gate they aren't going to blame him for saving who he could save, maybe even saving the entire town. So the correct answer is close the gate.

The hypothetical question is wrong in assuming you'll know the outcome before it happens. I save X amount of citizens, it might have been you save All but one of your Citizens from the attacks by the werewolves by closing your gate. Obviously, the greater good is to save as many as possible.

It's not your fault the attack occured in the first place, it is your job to protect those you can. If you can't protect the fat slow guy, or the guy already injured by the werewolves, then so be it, you won't get blamed for his death.

Actually the "good" (+ selfless and heroic) thing to do in the classical (morally absolute) sense of the word would be jumping down in front of the werewolves yourself so that the slow guy can be saved. You consider every life sacred as your own, so you try to protect it as you would protect your own. And because you consider every life sacred, even if you don't have the guts to jump down, you will still not be able to give the order to close that gate and sacrifice the one guy to save the rest of the town. All that because you are good. According to moral absolutism, being good is not synonymous with being smart. You are not judged by the outcome of your actions, you are judged by the principles that cause your actions. The popular Kantian ethics depend on moral absolutism.

The real debate here is between Moral Absolutists and Consequentialists. People who define "good" and "evil" based on principles and people who define them based on the outcome. You know which side I am on.

 

[Ulysseslotro]

I'm not sure about that. The most important thing to do is your duty to protect others. If you sacrifice yourself, you do not achieve that goal because no one is left to close the gate. If there was multiple people standing around to close the gate, you could just as easily order them to protect the citizens. But, that isn't the case.

Lets break it down further into Cause and Effect

Your being attacked. Thats a Cause
Your Citizens are fleeing into the castle for protection. Thats a Cause
Your protection extends only to those who are in the Castle and those who can make it in time. Thats a Cause

You close the gate early leave them all to die to save the remainder in the Castle. Thats an effect. This would be Neutral (they know they are on their own outside)
You close the gate at the last moment sparing as many as possible. Thats an effect. (This is good)
You don't close the gate at all and shirk your duty to protect any citizen, nor do you jump down to save anyone. Thats an effect. (This is Evil)

You can never be blamed for a cause, you can only be blamed for an effect by your actions. Since, you are appointed as a leader to protect all those you can, the right thing to do is save as many as possible.

The point i'm trying to make is. You can save the town or castle, You can save as many as possible, or you can do nothing because its your philosophy that you are sacrificing someone, when in reality it wasn't you sacrificing them at all, they were being attacked and you simply choose to help save lives or you didn't.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

You don't close the gate at all and shirk your duty to protect any citizen, nor do you jump down to save anyone. Thats an effect. (This is Evil)

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.

 

[Honor]

I'm not sure about that. The most important thing to do is your duty to protect others. If you sacrifice yourself, you do not achieve that goal because no one is left to close the gate. If there was multiple people standing around to close the gate, you could just as easily order them to protect the citizens. But, that isn't the case.

Lets break it down further into Cause and Effect

Your being attacked. Thats a Cause
Your Citizens are fleeing into the castle for protection. Thats a Cause
Your protection extends only to those who are in the Castle and those who can make it in time. Thats a Cause

You close the gate early leave them all to die to save the remainder in the Castle. Thats an effect. This would be Neutral (they know they are on their own outside)
You close the gate at the last moment sparing as many as possible. Thats an effect. (This is good)
You don't close the gate at all and shirk your duty to protect any citizen, nor do you jump down to save anyone. Thats an effect. (This is Evil)

You can never be blamed for a cause, you can only be blamed for an effect by your actions. Since, you are appointed as a leader to protect all those you can, the right thing to do is save as many as possible.

The point i'm trying to make is. You can save the town or castle, You can save as many as possible, or you can do nothing because its your philosophy that you are sacrificing someone, when in reality it wasn't you sacrificing them at all, they were being attacked and you simply choose to help save lives or you didn't.

I get it, you are a consequentialist, as I defined above. I got it the first time. You are talking about cause and effect, and yet I am talking about principles. That means, whatever the reason is, or the consequences are, if you take an action to close down the gate and doom that one man, you are not doing a "good" thing regardless of the consequences. As I said, I believe "smart" does not equate to "good". Sacrificing 1 life to save thousands is not a morally justified argument. Morality should never be about numbers. You can not ask that slow guy to give up his own life to save the town as it is not your place to do so even if you "knew" he willingly would sacrifice it, let alone take it away from him without his say so and then claim that you have done a "good" thing. It may be the "smart" thing to do, but ultimately it is not the "good" thing.

Now, whether people with responsibilities should cling to absolute moral principles is another debate entirely. As KillerClowns masterfully put it earlier, "never let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing." - the right thing here being the smart thing. But you cannot claim that the smart thing to do is always the morally "good" thing.

 

[Honor]

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.

Your action leads to his death, at least as directly as pushing him off the balcony, so it is not "good". You change his surroundings and make it a lot harder for him to survive. You are guilty.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Your action leads to his death, at least as directly as pushing him off the balcony, so it is not "good". You change his surroundings and make it a lot harder for him to survive. You are guilty.

No, my action leads to life without endagering innocents. This is the point of acting. You do not make it a lot harder for someone to survive. You save the ones that will die because of him.

 

[Honor]

No, my action leads to life without endagering innocents. This is the point of acting. You do not make it a lot harder for someone to survive. You save the ones that will die because of him.

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.