How do you deal with evil without being evil yourself? [Archive]

Riegan Swordwraith

03-02-2002, 03:42 PM

Yes I have killed,and although my alignment is none of your business,for purposes of this particular discussion,I shall disclose the fact that I am Neutral Good with strong Chaotic tendencies.

Second question is dependant on situation.For example your group is rooting out a group of gnolls which has been raiding a few villages in one of your provinces.Obviously there will be bloodshed,as you are invading their home because they are invading yours.This is not evil.Say one surrenders but before anyone can secure him,one of the party kills it.Evil is starting to worm its way in.Another surrenders and you do secure it.You parley with it for awhile,and let it go,and you kill it.That is EVIL,no doubt about it.

Killing monsters count.....again depends.Killing neutrally aligned monsters(ankhegs,packs of wolves during a particularly brutal winter),that are infesting a province,is a necessary evil.They are just doing what we do,looking for food.Something coming in and rampaging through the province,such as a horde of gibberlings.....Not evil.Going into a small foresst and wiping out anything and everything in it so some citizens can move into it...EVIL!!!!

Death Penalty is one of those touchy subjects.The death penalty in and of itself is NOT evil,it is who uses it and how it is used.Used by Gavin Tael,it is evil.Odds are he uses it to get rid of anyone who defies his authority.When used by a Paladin of Haelyn,who odds are will hold a fair trial and only use it against the most uncorrigible of murderers,no it is not.

I think I forgot to add something to my post when I said killing is evil,and I mean it here as well.Killing is evil,but it is all in degrees,and in perception.WHY did the paladin kill that man?Was he defending a young woman from a cold-blooded murderer,or did he do it becasue a young woman he is enamored with,loves the man he killed?Killing is evil,but in the first case it is forgiveable,nearly neglible,and definitely not needing of an alignment shift nor even second thought.But the second should require an IMMEDIATE alignment shift,as that is jealousy and selfishness.

blitzmacher

03-03-2002, 02:55 AM

After the knight killed his foe in battle he searches the sky for lightning bolts which his god will strike him with for killing the man. Finding himself still alive and unstricken, he believes this man was then evil and killing him was a good deed.

Lord Eldred

03-03-2002, 02:06 PM

So if I understand the argument, killing is evil but in some cases it is ok? And if I am correct in one case it is not evil because they are Gnolls who are invading your villages.

So in some cases it is ok to be evil?

If the act itself is evil in all cases, wouldn't good characters have an obligation to try to handle every situation without "killing the beast"? If they didn't try to handle every situation with the least amount of force, shouldn't they suffer an alignment change?

Let us take for example the situation where the Paladin is defending the maiden from the cold blooded murderer. Shouldn't the Paladin have the obligation to preven the murder of the maiden with out killing the murderer if the act of killing in and of itself is evil? If the Paladin didn't even try to prevent the murder without bloodshed (using the subdue), shouldn't the paladin suffer an alignment change?

A necessary evil? Couldn't we fence off the land from these wolves without killing them?

If the act of killing is evil, shouldn't you suffer an alignment change if you didn't first try to take care of the problem without killing?

Perhelion

03-04-2002, 01:37 AM

In the real middle ages, life was pretty cheap. Killing and getting killed was the way of life. Capital punishment was common for many offences, brigands would pass their prey to the sword on a routine basis and if you didn't die by someones hands, disease was likely to do so at some point. In a campaign with clerics and healers, disease can be less of an issue, especially for those who have the means to pay for cures. Monsters, on the other hand, would tend to increase the death rate.
I believe no-one at that time had any notion of environmentalism, except perhaps the elves to some degree. No-one would think twice of killing a wolf, as they were considered as pests and hunted to near extinction in Europe (as late as early in this -er sorry- the previous century).
Killing a gnoll was probably as acceptable if not even more so. After all a wolf is only a beast, while the gnoll actually seeks you out and raids villages and such.
As for the Paladin vs. Murderer example, I think that the paladin would be entirely justified in taking the murderer's life. Better still would be to take him alive and face trial and public execution (a popular entertainment in these times).
If a paladin is given a sword, is it not to use it on whoever his deity or conscience sets him against? To use it against defenceless victims would be dishonourable, but to use it against an armed opponent? I somehow doubt people would bat an eyelid. To take joy in the act of killing would be evil, but to consider it a necessary evil and dispatch the job as soon as possible?
ps. IRL I am opposed to the death penalty. Or killing of any form for that matter.

Chioran

03-05-2002, 02:33 AM

The statement that "Killing is evil" is a generalization and generalizations should be avoided at all costs.

Chioran

03-05-2002, 02:34 AM

Killing, itself, is an act. Acts are neither good nor evil they are simply acts. Those who commit them are either good or evil.

Abbess Allessandra

03-05-2002, 02:47 AM

Is this that whole mind slayer thing again? My head hurts already.

Chioran

03-05-2002, 02:50 AM

Orginally posted by Abbess Allessandra

Is this that whole mind slayer thing again? My head hurts already.

Ah this brings up one of my favorite arguments.

Is it acceptable to kill one innocent to save 1000 others? A million?

Lord Shaene

03-07-2002, 04:24 PM

How can u prove without a doubt its 100% innocent

Chioran

03-07-2002, 04:34 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

How can u prove without a doubt its 100% innocent

What is a new born babe guilty of my dear boy?

Lord Shaene

03-07-2002, 04:37 PM

be born in a unfair world

Chioran

03-07-2002, 04:41 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

be born in a unfair world

That is not the childs guilt to bear. The guilt is the parents for brining him/her into the world. Try again.

Lord Shaene

03-07-2002, 04:52 PM

isnt every baby born with sin?

Chioran

03-07-2002, 04:54 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

isnt every baby born with sin?

under the catholic religion they are, but sin does not equal guilt

Arlen Blaede

03-07-2002, 05:59 PM

I'm going to ignore the just born baby question first off.

OK, first: to kill an innocent IS EVIL no matter how many you save. Whether or not it is acceptable depends on who you ask.

Second: I agree that killing is an act, neither good nor evil. After all, humans are the best predators in the world. If you think that killing animals for food is still evil, then do as the Native Americans did and prey for the animals souls as it dies.

Third, the issue of a Paladin killing to defend: The paladin is a gods hand on earth/cyrilia. He/she acts in the best interest of that god. The Paladin's purpose is not truly defensive; it is their nature to seek out (ie. hunt) evil and destroy it. And, since Good is the opposite of Evil, it is Good that they destroy Evil.
NOTE: The world is quite often not crystal clear on what is actually evil. So the Paladin is also taught to be lenient and merciful UNLESS he has definitive proof that what he/she is fighting is EVIL. Then it is their obligation to destroy it. Again, life will sometimes get in the way and cloud this issue.

Fourth, the knight fighting a knight: So, their combats are full of gray areas and are very rarely of a Good nature. I don't think anyone can say that wars of hostile expansion are a Good thing. It is a knights duty to follow his lords orders. His concern is very rarely about good or evil. If a Knight does not follow orders he is at risk of being killed, having his title and lands stripped from him, and possibly of having his family exiled or even killed with the Knight. Lords tend to be very unforgiving of treason no matter their alignment.

Fifth, the monster conundrum: Again, this area is filled to the brim with Gray areas. In defense, it is not an evil act to kill a monster (same rule as with fighting human opponents). Now, let's say that a band of knights attacked the camp of a marauding band of Orogs and killed them all. No problem right, well what if one of those knights saw a female Orog not attacking back, but only holding a spear in front of the opening of her tent and proceeded to kill her. Gets a little fuzzier here, because she wasn't being aggressive. Now let's add a further wrinkle and say that this same Knight went into the tent and found a baby inside. Afterwhich, he then proceeds to skewer the defenseless infant while it is crying for its mother. Hmm...can you say EVIL?

Really, unless you are in a pure defensive fight or you know you are battling pure EVIL, then every situation must be judged on its individual characteristics.

Also, please remember that EVIL does not necessarily have to be through action. If someone does nothing in opposition to EVIL, thus allowing EVIL to prosper, they are also committing an EVIL act. I'll admit, it may not be as vicious as the actual act, but it comes close. (NOTE: by this last statement I am not advocating that you toss your life away carelessly trying to fight 3000 Orogs as they attack your small village. Run away and get help. If you can)

Oops, left out the death penalty situation. Here's one that is really kinda iffy. Does the executioner know for truth, that the individual to be executed is EVIL? The other question is at what point does a crime become punishable by death?
INTERESTING SITUATION: Thief comes into a house while everyone is asleep to steal the valuables. Man discovers the theif in his house and proceeds to attack him with a sword. Thief gets backed into a corner and then draws a knife and ends up killing the man. Does the thief then deserve to be executed?

PS If I didn't cover anything, let me know.

Chioran

03-07-2002, 07:03 PM

I agree with all but the fourth point:

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede

Fourth, the knight fighting a knight: So, their combats are full of gray areas and are very rarely of a Good nature. I don't think anyone can say that wars of hostile expansion are a Good thing. It is a knights duty to follow his lords orders. His concern is very rarely about good or evil. If a Knight does not follow orders he is at risk of being killed, having his title and lands stripped from him, and possibly of having his family exiled or even killed with the Knight. Lords tend to be very unforgiving of treason no matter their alignment.

I believe that knights were concerned about the question of good or evil and did often do penance for the killing they had done. Granted they didn't feel badly enough to stop doing it, but just the same...

Arlen Blaede

03-08-2002, 08:00 PM

You are write. I mispoke when I said they were not concerned with good or evil. What I meant was that they hardly ever rebelled against their lords orders for fear of retribution.

blitzmacher

03-09-2002, 12:43 AM

Review your history, it is full of lords rebelling

Lawgiver

03-09-2002, 05:08 AM

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede
OK, first: to kill an innocent IS EVIL no matter how many you save. Whether or not it is acceptable depends on who you ask.

Second: I agree that killing is an act, neither good nor evil. After all, humans are the best predators in the world. If you think that killing animals for food is still evil, then do as the Native Americans did and prey for the animals souls as it dies.

You are contradicting yourself with these two points... first you state killing is eveil, then you state it is an act that is neither good or evil.

I tried to avoid this debate for as long as possible because unless you accept an absolute standard at some point the entire arguement is futile.

I personally do not believe that killing in and of itself is inherantly evil. First and foremost, if it were evil God could never "kill" anyone. This would nullify the concept of judgement at eh end of the world. Along with several key events in the bible where God is the ultimate source of someones death (though never without repeated warnings and opportunities to prevent the situation...).

However, i do not beleive that the finite mind of human nature is adequate enough to make desicions on who should live and who should die. That remains to be decided by a higher power.

For those of you who define killing as EVIL, I propse the following. What if someone "accidentally" kills someone does that make them evil sense they have commited an evil act? Say they parked their car on a hill and accidentally forgot to set the emergency break. 2 minutes after leaving the car, it begins to roll backwards down the hill and passes through and intersection and someone is killed when they collide with the runaway vehicle. Technically, the absentminded person is responsible for killing the individual. Did they commit an evil act by forgetting the emergency brake?

Mithrandir

03-09-2002, 06:40 AM

I personaly feel that for a human to conciously take another life is evil. I think however, that sometimes it is a nessecary and exceptable evil. Kill one innocent to save a thousand? As Arlen Blaede said, it's evil, but could you live with yourself if you didn't? As to the question of accidentily killing someone, still bad for not taking procuations, but just not as evil as doing it on purpose. Good and Evil is not a switch to be turned on and off, but progresses from minor wrongs to deadly sins. Ultimately, my personal religous beliefs say that the average human will comit some sins over his life, and you seek redemption for those sins. Ultimately then, the question of how to deal with evil without becoming evil yourself is a matter between you, your personal standards, and your Maker(whoever you view him to be). You can meet evil with come defiance, and die knowing you are sound in your morals. Or you can fight it, and except what level of evil you are willing to commit to fight evil. Is it wrong to kill one innocent to save a thousand, yes. But the real question is are you willing to except that evil to allow a thousand innocents to live. Just my thoughts.

Arlen Blaede

03-09-2002, 12:52 PM

Orginally posted by Lawgiver

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede
OK, first: to kill an innocent IS EVIL no matter how many you save. Whether or not it is acceptable depends on who you ask.

Second: I agree that killing is an act, neither good nor evil. After all, humans are the best predators in the world. If you think that killing animals for food is still evil, then do as the Native Americans did and prey for the animals souls as it dies.

You are contradicting yourself with these two points... first you state killing is eveil, then you state it is an act that is neither good or evil.

I personally do not believe that killing in and of itself is inherantly evil. First and foremost, if it were evil God could never "kill" anyone. This would nullify the concept of judgement at eh end of the world. Along with several key events in the bible where God is the ultimate source of someones death (though never without repeated warnings and opportunities to prevent the situation...).

However, i do not beleive that the finite mind of human nature is adequate enough to make desicions on who should live and who should die. That remains to be decided by a higher power.

For those of you who define killing as EVIL, I propse the following. What if someone "accidentally" kills someone does that make them evil sense they have commited an evil act? Say they parked their car on a hill and accidentally forgot to set the emergency break. 2 minutes after leaving the car, it begins to roll backwards down the hill and passes through and intersection and someone is killed when they collide with the runaway vehicle. Technically, the absentminded person is responsible for killing the individual. Did they commit an evil act by forgetting the emergency brake?

OK, I put those points in the wrong order. Killing is an action, neither good nor evil in and of itself. It's based on the situation. In my mind it is an evil act to kill an innocent no matter how many lives you save. (ie. it's a specific case)

I also do concur that their is really no way for the human mind to be capable of truly judging whether or not someone is evil and should therefore be destroyed. <That's why the god's gave paladins such wonderful abilities>

Lastly, in the case of the forgotten parking brake, the forgettful individual did not commit an evil act. However, this does not relieve that person of the responsibility of the act. That person then, is responsible for providing recompense to those who will suffer as a result of this loss.

Arlen Blaede

03-09-2002, 12:55 PM

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

Review your history, it is full of lords rebelling

Your right, but I'll say that this rebelling was, more often than not, motivated by personal greed.

Lord Eldred

03-10-2002, 03:25 PM

Orginally posted by Mithrandir

I personaly feel that for a human to conciously take another life is evil. I think however, that sometimes it is a nessecary and exceptable evil. Kill one innocent to save a thousand? As Arlen Blaede said, it's evil, but could you live with yourself if you didn't? As to the question of accidentily killing someone, still bad for not taking procuations, but just not as evil as doing it on purpose. Good and Evil is not a switch to be turned on and off, but progresses from minor wrongs to deadly sins. Ultimately, my personal religous beliefs say that the average human will comit some sins over his life, and you seek redemption for those sins. Ultimately then, the question of how to deal with evil without becoming evil yourself is a matter between you, your personal standards, and your Maker(whoever you view him to be). You can meet evil with come defiance, and die knowing you are sound in your morals. Or you can fight it, and except what level of evil you are willing to commit to fight evil. Is it wrong to kill one innocent to save a thousand, yes. But the real question is are you willing to except that evil to allow a thousand innocents to live. Just my thoughts.

Personally I don't buy that it is ok to kill one innocent to save thousands unless the one innocent willingly gives his/her life to save the thousands. I also don't believe I could do it. Say killing my son would save the world from AIDs, I could not and would not kill my son to save the world. Say killing someone elses son would save the world, I still couldn't do it. This argumentation would justify the human experimentation that the Nazi's did on the Jews because they believed that the experimentation would help them save people! The act of killing one innocent to save a thousand is evil and unjustifiable. The ends do not justify the means.

Lord Eldred

03-10-2002, 03:29 PM

Orginally posted by Perhelion

In the real middle ages, life was pretty cheap. Killing and getting killed was the way of life. Capital punishment was common for many offences, brigands would pass their prey to the sword on a routine basis and if you didn't die by someones hands, disease was likely to do so at some point. In a campaign with clerics and healers, disease can be less of an issue, especially for those who have the means to pay for cures. Monsters, on the other hand, would tend to increase the death rate.
I believe no-one at that time had any notion of environmentalism, except perhaps the elves to some degree. No-one would think twice of killing a wolf, as they were considered as pests and hunted to near extinction in Europe (as late as early in this -er sorry- the previous century).
Killing a gnoll was probably as acceptable if not even more so. After all a wolf is only a beast, while the gnoll actually seeks you out and raids villages and such.
As for the Paladin vs. Murderer example, I think that the paladin would be entirely justified in taking the murderer's life. Better still would be to take him alive and face trial and public execution (a popular entertainment in these times).
If a paladin is given a sword, is it not to use it on whoever his deity or conscience sets him against? To use it against defenceless victims would be dishonourable, but to use it against an armed opponent? I somehow doubt people would bat an eyelid. To take joy in the act of killing would be evil, but to consider it a necessary evil and dispatch the job as soon as possible?
ps. IRL I am opposed to the death penalty. Or killing of any form for that matter.

So you believe in situational ethics?

Arlen Blaede

03-10-2002, 03:43 PM

:) Ahh, I love philosophy and ethics.

blitzmacher

03-10-2002, 03:51 PM

Aren't most wars motivated by someones greed Arlen?

Arlen Blaede

03-10-2002, 04:10 PM

Greed, stupidity, "Seemed like a good idea at the time." Take your pick.

blitzmacher

03-10-2002, 04:44 PM

I'll agree with both.

Chioran

03-11-2002, 03:33 AM

Let us not forget revenge. Revenge is a strong motivator for war.

blitzmacher

03-12-2002, 12:24 AM

And religion

Chioran

03-12-2002, 01:48 AM

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

And religion

Ah yes. Excellent!

Lawgiver

03-15-2002, 04:22 AM

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede
Lastly, in the case of the forgotten parking brake, the forgettful individual did not commit an evil act. However, this does not relieve that person of the responsibility of the act. That person then, is responsible for providing recompense to those who will suffer as a result of this loss.

What is the value of a human life? How much should the absent minded person have to pay as compensation for their mistake? Is money the best compensation? What about the adage of an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'? Should teh person be killed to compensate for the loss they inflicted?

We can run around on this issue for days on end.... Way to go Eldred! :P

Arlen Blaede

03-15-2002, 04:59 PM

No, the forgetful person should not be killed. Whether or not he should spend time in jail is a little fuzzy for me to. He should be responsible for making up the money that the victims family has now lost due to the loss of a wage earner.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is certainly one way to go, but it doesn't solve any problem here. The guilty party would then possibly leave behind another family who no longer has a means of supporting itself. Not only is this unjust, but it also means that the state has a second family it must now provide for as well.

Lawgiver

03-15-2002, 05:10 PM

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede
No, the forgetful person should not be killed. Whether or not he should spend time in jail is a little fuzzy for me to. He should be responsible for making up the money that the victims family has now lost due to the loss of a wage earner.

-So what if the victim is not a wage earner, but rather is a child?
-Do you calculate some sum of money that the child may have earned in his or her lifetime?
-What about the child's future children?
-What about the value of the ideas and contributions of the child to society?
-If the child were to have grown up to be a scientist who discovered the cure to cancer does that increase the value of the human life?
-What if the victim were a homeless man with no family? Would his life be worth less than a doctor with 5 kids and a quarter of a million dollar annual income?
-If the victim has a terminal disease and was going to die within 3 months is compensation necessary?
...
...
...

Arlen Blaede

03-15-2002, 05:20 PM

First and foremost, no matter the amount of money, no matter the length of service or imprisonment, no matter the deaths repaid for the deed; it will not replace the the feelings of loss and the potential of the victim.

Second, the future ifs of potential and children. How do you know that the victim will do these things. Whose to say it wasn't just their time? (NOTE-I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm just taking the other side for the purpose of discovery)

Third, the homeless man, still has potential. Whose to say he would not become the next Bill Gates?

Fourth, the terminal victim (now that's just a weird phrase I never thought I would use) still has time left on the clock to address life.

In all cases, compensation is necessary, but this is one of those sticky issues where it will never be made right.

Mithrandir

03-16-2002, 02:07 AM

I don't think you could even come up with a base to work from in terms of compensating a human life. After all, the value of a human life changes with who you talk to. A clown, a child, an artist, a senator, the pope, and a rabi. Which one is more valuable depends on who you talk to (though I would bet good money that the child would win in a poll). At best you could just charge enough compensation to act as a deterent next time. Personally I feel that in the case of the parking break, the fact that you killed someoine should serve as plenty of reminder next time you park on hill. But hey, if money's what you want...

Arlen Blaede

03-16-2002, 02:23 AM

Orginally posted by Lawgiver

[quote][i]

We can run around on this issue for days on end.... Way to go Eldred! :P

Well, I believe we have run around this for days on end all ready.

And to clarify and earlier statement. When I use the word compensation I don't just mean money. I also mean by deed.

Lord Eldred

03-16-2002, 10:21 PM

I am still interested in the argument that to knowingly take anothers life is evil. If this is true, are all people in the armed forces (who are trained to take another persons life and do) evil? Is it only evil to knowingly take a human life?

Does anyone have a character that has never taken any life at all?

Arlen Blaede

03-17-2002, 01:11 AM

<First off I'm a little biased on this one as I am a member of the armed forces>

If you are saying that killing is itself an evil act then yes, any member of the armed forces would atleast be bent towards evil if they haven't taken a life. If they have killed in the line of duty, then, with the above rule, they are indeed evil.

For your second part, "Is it only evil to knowingly take a human life?" I believe that you must intentionally perform the act for it to really be evil. Being evil by conscientiously exterminating millions of people is different from feeling guilty about the same result which you may have accidentally caused.

And yes, I have played a character that had never taken any life at all. (Although it was a werewolf in the White Wolf story line)

blitzmacher

03-17-2002, 02:43 AM

Killing being evil is a point of view. It never has nor will it ever be written in black and white, only in shades of gray. Thou shall not kill, comes from one who has done so. I'm sure the innocent first born might have thought it was evil when they woke up dead. Therefore the evil killers have always been to the ones who loose while the good killers are the ones who have won. So Let It Be Written.

Mithrandir

03-18-2002, 12:59 AM

Lord Eldred

03-18-2002, 02:58 AM

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede

<First off I'm a little biased on this one as I am a member of the armed forces>

If you are saying that killing is itself an evil act then yes, any member of the armed forces would atleast be bent towards evil if they haven't taken a life. If they have killed in the line of duty, then, with the above rule, they are indeed evil.

For your second part, "Is it only evil to knowingly take a human life?" I believe that you must intentionally perform the act for it to really be evil. Being evil by conscientiously exterminating millions of people is different from feeling guilty about the same result which you may have accidentally caused.

And yes, I have played a character that had never taken any life at all. (Although it was a werewolf in the White Wolf story line)

So as a member of the armed forces if you intentionally take the life of another are you evil? You seem to skirt the issue a bit here.

I think you make it clear that exterminating millions of people is evil such as Hitler killing the Jews. How about the frontline German soldier killing an American soldier was that German soldier evil?

I am particularly interested in your opinion as a member of the armed services!

Lawgiver

03-19-2002, 05:27 AM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
I am still interested in the argument that to knowingly take anothers life is evil.

You have posed the question and seem to be in a hurry to pin others down to their opinion. What is your own opinion and justification for your answer?

Arlen Blaede

03-20-2002, 04:55 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

So as a member of the armed forces if you intentionally take the life of another are you evil? You seem to skirt the issue a bit here.

I think you make it clear that exterminating millions of people is evil such as Hitler killing the Jews. How about the frontline German soldier killing an American soldier was that German soldier evil?

I am particularly interested in your opinion as a member of the armed services!

If you follow the rule that killing is evil, then yes, a member of the armed forces who kills is evil. But to make this even plainer following this rule any person intentionally taking any life is evil.

However, in my personal opinion, the German soldier in your case is not necessarily evil. You have to find out certain information. Does the German soldier enjoy taking life and the rush that this gives him? Does the German soldier who is serving his country regret the lives he is taking and trying to keep unnecessary death from happening? I can go on for quite a while, but I hope you get the idea.

In war the common soldier is hardly ever evil, nor are his commanders. But we (as in members of an army) tend to villify the enemy. We portray him to be an evil that must be stopped, that must be destroyed. We do this so we don't have to constantly think about the fact that we are taking another life. It essence we justify our actions so we don't hesitate to pull the trigger.

Lawgiver

03-30-2002, 04:54 AM

So then is killing in self-defense evil?

Arlen Blaede

03-30-2002, 02:03 PM

In my personal opinion killing in self defense is not evil. What's your opinion on this one?

Here's another very gray situation for you.

A man is terminally ill and in a great deal of pain. He asks his very dear friend to aid him in his suicide. Friend complies by delivering a fatal dose of medication this killing his friend. Is there evil anywhere in this?

Eric Saxon

04-01-2002, 09:24 AM

I have read the whole topic and all I can say is 'silly civilians'. You people have way to much time on your hands if this is what you are debating. Like my friend up above I am a member of the U.S. military, so my opinion is my own and not shared or endorsed by my superiors, now I am a lawyer :).

Killing is not wrong, bad or evil. Killing is what we do everyday. Everyone of you, who buys his girlfriend a diamond ring or if you receive a diamond ring from your fiance are responsible for murder, rape and mutilation. Why you ask? Because if you did not buy the diamonds, then warlords in Africa wouldn't be doing nasty shit to one-another and their own people.

Buy gasoline and get mad when the price goes up, hey guess what you are the reason why the pres. sends USMC into the middle east to get the price down so that you can ride in that fancy SUV.

Everyday each of us is responsible for death of others we just don't like to look in the mirror when we say murderer.

Now some of you may say that you causing death is not intentional, I say, ignorance is not an excuse. As for good intentions, well there is a highway to hell and it is paved with them.

Chioran

04-01-2002, 01:02 PM

Orginally posted by Eric Saxon

I have read the whole topic and all I can say is 'silly civilians'. You people have way to much time on your hands if this is what you are debating. Like my friend up above I am a member of the U.S. military, so my opinion is my own and not shared or endorsed by my superiors, now I am a lawyer :).

Killing is not wrong, bad or evil. Killing is what we do everyday. Everyone of you, who buys his girlfriend a diamond ring or if you receive a diamond ring from your fiance are responsible for murder, rape and mutilation. Why you ask? Because if you did not buy the diamonds, then warlords in Africa wouldn't be doing nasty shit to one-another and their own people.

Well I don't buy my girlfriend diamond rings. So I guess that means I am in the clear! Excellent!

Orginally posted by Eric Saxon
Buy gasoline and get mad when the price goes up, hey guess what you are the reason why the pres. sends USMC into the middle east to get the price down so that you can ride in that fancy SUV.

You are absolutely right. I will walk the 45 miles from my home to my place of employment.

Orginally posted by Eric Saxon
Everyday each of us is responsible for death of others we just don't like to look in the mirror when we say murderer.

Now some of you may say that you causing death is not intentional, I say, ignorance is not an excuse. As for good intentions, well there is a highway to hell and it is paved with them.
It has already been stated that killing is not evil. I think everyone on this board agrees that killing is an act and that acts are not good or evil, it is the person committing them that has either good or evil intent.

I find your comments to be a bit short-sighted. To say that I am guilty of forcing gas prices up because I drive a car is ludicruous. I have no choice, but to do so. Society has forecd me into a position where I must work outside my home. Society has made the only practical means of transportation one which is dependent on fossil fuels. I would much rather have a vehicle which ran on air. Better yet, I would rather not have to go to work and avoid the expense of owning a car all together.

As far as being a murderer because of what you buy. If you take the extremist stand point, as you have, then you are absolutely correct. I think that the more realistic view of the situation is that it is the responsibility of the government of South Africa to take responsibility, instead of kick-backs. Should we just throw up our hands and say oh well, that's how it goes? No. We should (and have) brought economic and political pressure to bear on countries which allow things like this to go on. Has it resolved the issues? In some cases yes and some cases no.

My final statement relates to your first. If we have too much time on our hands for debating this issue what does that say about you? Have you not posted on this same issue?

Eric Saxon

04-01-2002, 02:43 PM

"Well I don't buy my girlfriend diamond rings. So I guess that means I am in the clear! Excellent."

Good Job.

"You are absolutely right. I will walk the 45 miles from my home to my place of employment."

No one is telling you to walk, but you also don't have to drive a gas guzzling SUV.

"I find your comments to be a bit short-sighted. To say that I am guilty of forcing gas prices up because I drive a car is ludicruous."

Supply and demand, if you drive an SUV in LA when a normal vehicle would do just as well, is causing the prices of gas to shoot up. It is not the use of gas that causes these major shifts, but rather the major increases in the amount of gas. It is every half-wit who wants to drive an all terrain vehicle in the 'jungles' of LA and NY who is causing the sudden increases.

"I have no choice, but to do so. Society has forecd me into a position where I must work outside my home. Society has made the only practical means of transportation one which is dependent on fossil fuels."

Use a bus. Or use your car, but don't cry murder the next time we go to war against one of the middle-easter states.

"I would much rather have a vehicle which ran on air. Better yet, I would rather not have to go to work and avoid the expense of owning a car all together."

Imagine - John Lennon, need I say more. :)

"I think that the more realistic view of the situation is that it is the responsibility of the government of South Africa to take responsibility, instead of kick-backs. Should we just throw up our hands and say oh well, that's how it goes? No. We should (and have) brought economic and political pressure to bear on countries which allow things like this to go on. Has it resolved the issues? In some cases yes and some cases no."

It has not resolved even one case of such attrocities, the diamond cartel works the same way that the drug cartels do in S. America.

"My final statement relates to your first. If we have too much time on our hands for debating this issue what does that say about you? Have you not posted on this same issue?"

Touche, got me there. Point and match to you, but the game is not yet over. :)

[/quote]

Lord Eldred

04-01-2002, 03:07 PM

Eric, Chioran lives in Michigan which creates a problem for many of your arguments.

He doesn't drive a gas guzzline SUV...maybe a van but not an SUV.

He doesn't live in LA

Since we live in Michigan the public transportation system sucks. Bus is not an option.

Eric Saxon

04-01-2002, 06:52 PM

I hear you bro, I understand that not everyone lives in LA, but most of the post was not directed at him, his questions probably represented arguments most of the other people would have had, so the reply was generally targeted at everyone who writes and reads these posts.

As for the van, you don't have to drive an SUV to cause these problems, driving a Cadillac instead of a Honda Civic is just as bad for the gas consumption and pollution, that was just an example of things we do, that we do not realize are harmful to the rest of the world.

The same concept applies everytime you want a $5 t-shirt instead of a $15 t-shirt, you are responsible for some 5-year old in south-east asia being exploited and living in intolerable conditions.

I am simply making a point that it is not something you should feel guilty about, but I recommend you don't judge people who kill for a living, like soldiers or knights. At least they are being honest about what they do instead of being part of the silent killer we call society. Now I am getting philosophical. hehehe

Chioran

04-02-2002, 04:25 PM

Just so that we are clear where I stand, I do not feel that a soldier (or knight) who kills is as part of his/her job is evil. If the killing is outside of the job paramters say, for example, going into a MacDonalds and strafing the place, then we can talk about that individul being evil.

As for what I drive, we take trips frequently, often these trips include 4 to 6 people and luggage. As you can see a Honda Civic will be impractical. However, on the plus side, the fact that we have a large van does eliminate the need for multiple vehicles to be used.

We can sit around all day and talk about how much better it would be if we all drove vehicles with high fuel economy or no reliance on gasoline whatsoever, but what is the practicality of that at this stage in our society? It is highly impractical. Therefore, because I am forced to do certain things because of the way society has been structured I shouldn't be able to complain?

What really pisses me off are all the hippy freaks (I am not necessarily referring to you Eric- unless of course you are a hippy), who preach conservation, save the snails, save the whales and all that other crap, then proceed to buy the SUVs, plastic disposable this and that and all the other environment corrutping garbage they want.

Arlen Blaede

04-02-2002, 04:47 PM

Rant, rant, rant..... :P

Ahhh.., I'm glad that everyone has been able to vent their frustrations about what a despicable world we live in.

To Eric, yes the world has many things wrong with it and quite a few of these are completely overlooked by the common man because he is insulated from them. You can argue that ignorance is not an excuse, but we have all ready seen that most Americans don't really give a hoot unless it occurs in their back yard. So my question to you is fairly simple. What should we do about it?

Chioran, I agree completely about those wonderful hypocritical people out there who never practice what they preach. However, I'll advise that you watch out that you don't stereotype people too much. I've learned that that just leads you to some amazingly false assumptions.

As for me, I am guilty of buying those five dollar t-shirts, purchasing a diamond, and even owning an SUV. I make no excuses for my actions. However, this is the nature of a free market society. Products come in, and those with the highest value, get bought. I do not advocate child labor, sweat shops, drug cartels, or the diamond wars in Central Africa. Matter of fact, if my unit deployed today to go to Africa on a "Peace-Keeping Mission" I would be saddened to leave my family, but I would happily serve this purpose. Just as I was happy to serve as a Peace Keeper in Bosnia. I am not trying to justify my actions, just saying that we (the USA) have limited resources and can not combat all the evils of the world at the same time.

Well, there's two more of my pennies.

Lord Valkyr

04-02-2002, 07:15 PM

Well this is a sticky subject....

I believe killing to survive or to sustain life is neither good or evil it is just an unfortunate requirement of being alive. we regularly kill various plants an animals for the food/clothes we need. this is part of the death/life cycle.

on the armed forces member killing is evil question. As a former Marine I believe it is not evil just a necessary part of my duty to my country. I understand that we dehumanize an enemy to make it easier to kill, it doesnt make it good or evil. I personally think it is a sad waste of life to kill for reasons such as war. However I will kill those who are trying to kill me or my fellow Marines. Even if I am in their country on the orders of our government.

the german soldier vs american soldier scenario talked about earlier.... neither of them should be judged good or evil they are doing their job if you will.

the one life for 1000 or a million question.. If I was forced to make that decision regarding myself as the one I would do it without hesitation. Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. it serves the greater humanity a good thing in my mind. regarding someone else such as my son or a child. I would probably make the same decision I dont believe its a decision I could live with however it still would save more lives.

Right & wrong are made up from the majority values of the cultures in question which can be good or evil depending on your point of view. So killing can be both good,evil or neither of the two in the same instance depending on your persective.

Eric Saxon

04-02-2002, 09:06 PM

Ok, guys you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't blaming any of you for your comforts, I think that you have a right and a privilege to do it. I actually believe in exploiting the rest of the world all for our own benefit. You want a toothpick, fine, cut down a forest. Wear a fur coat, dring your whiskey and smoke Cuban cigars.

You guys thought that I was giving you a lesson in morality, I was simply trying to help all of you realize that you should join the dark side with eyes wide open, instead of creeping in, while bitching and moaning about the evils of the world. The force is stronger with the dark side.

MUAH HAHAHA

Ooh, it is just soo goood to be EVIL

Chioran

04-03-2002, 12:53 PM

I will admit that I am guilty of murder.

I have infact killed without regard for the innocents that were lost.

Alas, I shall miss those brain cells dearly.:P

Lord Eldred

04-03-2002, 04:48 PM

I am sure glad I started this thread ;)

Eric, I think you were trying to make an important point. I think I disagree with it. If your argument is that by are mere living we participate in acts that some would think is evil and thus our mere existence is evil, I disagree. I think that you have to intentionally take an innocent life to be commiting an evil act. If you mean for people to die for your mere act of living then you are evil.

On the armed forces, soldiers take life intentionally. However, are those lives innocent? Maybe. I think that is why I like the wars that occur in Birthright better. They are usually contained to those who are either getting paid to fight or volunteered to fight. (Those leaders that force their people to fight are evil). These people have agreed to give their life. Thus am I claiming that any of the marines on this site are evil maybe. They should ask theirselves do I intentionally kill innocent people. If they answer yes then maybe you are evil. If you answer no then you are not.

Lord Valkyr you are one of the people that I agree would give up their life to save 1000s you have proved it when you joined the armed forces. However, would you take one innocent life in a time of war if it meant saving thousands of others?

Arlen Blaede

04-03-2002, 05:02 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

I am sure glad I started this thread ;)

Lord Valkyr you are one of the people that I agree would give up their life to save 1000s you have proved it when you joined the armed forces. However, would you take one innocent life in a time of war if it meant saving thousands of others?

One thing I can say about this is, to be completely honest, I have no real clue as to how I would act. I would like to think that I could come up with another way, because I am one of those "glass is half full" kinda guys. There is always hope, and in this case I hold hope that I won't have to kill an innocent in order to save 1000s.

The other question is, which 1000 am I going to save, and are they worth it?

Lord Valkyr

04-03-2002, 06:18 PM

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

I am sure glad I started this thread ;)

Lord Valkyr you are one of the people that I agree would give up their life to save 1000s you have proved it when you joined the armed forces. However, would you take one innocent life in a time of war if it meant saving thousands of others?

One thing I can say about this is, to be completely honest, I have no real clue as to how I would act. I would like to think that I could come up with another way, because I am one of those "glass is half full" kinda guys. There is always hope, and in this case I hold hope that I won't have to kill an innocent in order to save 1000s.

The other question is, which 1000 am I going to save, and are they worth it?

If taking one innocent or several to save the lives of other marines or a 1000 people was the only option, depending on the situation yes I would kill to save the lives of others.

ex- Terrorist is using a small child as a shield while arming a bomb that will possibly kill hundreds or a thousand people I would do my best to find a gap to neutralize the terrorist without injuring the child. If no such option existed I would kill both. This is not something I could do lightly nor might it be something I could live with however it saved more lives. I guess an evil act for the greater good?

On the question of which 1000 people to save, thats a pretty tough one. If its a military withdrawal & we have only so much room for evacuated troops. I would follow the list of command personnel, wounded personnel, non-combat support & finally combat troops if any room was left over.
If I had to evacuate civilians I would go with women & children first I guess & work from there. In either case I would not be one of the 1000 saved if I had a choice about it.

I guess the true question of good & evil is more of how making those decisions make you feel. I believe a good character or person would kill but not enjoy it. I think he/she would attempt to disable or wound & try to force their opponent to surrender rather than kill them. Or even avoid combat by discussing or negotiating with their opponent first. An evil character or person would do the opposite, kill if they could because for lack of a better word it is pleasing to them.
followed by injury & as a last resort talking when the other options dont readily exist.

By my explanation I dont believe I would be evil even if forced to take an innocents life. I would have done it as the last resort & even though it saved many people the guilt of taking that life would haunt me for the rest of my days. If I was evil I would deliberately look for opportunities to kill or harm those who cant defend themselves.

blitzmacher

04-06-2002, 12:51 AM

Which is more evil, to wantonly kill someone, or to allow others to suffer?

Arlen Blaede

04-06-2002, 01:38 PM

Shades of gray in a sea of stormy clouds.

This is just as unsimple a comparison as the others. Gut reaction tells me that it's more evil to allow others to suffer.

For Example:
There are a couple of different situations where I might be "wantonly killing someone."
1) Just plain mean and I felt like it
2) I saw someone key my car and just killed 'em
3) Just found out my friend was raped and I killed the
perpetrator in a fit of rage

As for the other side where I might be allowing others to suffer, atleast as many situations exist:
4) I never met them before this moment and they don't
mean anything to me.
5) What's the point, "Life's a bitch and then you die. Their
gonna suffer anyway, so why should I get involved."
6) There are children starving in Africa but they're a whole
continent away so it's not my concern.
7) Someone is being tortured in front of you and you are
being restrained by a man with a gun to your head so
you do nothing.

From my judgement I would consider acts 1 and 2 to definitely be Evil. 3 is iffy and 4-7 contain hints of evilness, but who am I to judge it.