If if's and but's were donuts we'd all be fat as well. Why bring in nonsensical hypotheticals to try to prove your point? Why not deal with the facts at hand?
Because the argument has to do with applying
consistent, rational principles. When you try to assert a
principle you have to see whether it is dependent on context. To test that, you must examine that principle applied in other contexts and see if it holds up. If it doesn't hold up in another context than you've misidentified your principle.
The classic example is the assertion that "It is wrong to kill another human being," is a moral principle. It is almost always asserted as a knee-jerk, emotional response to a murder - an unjust killing. It is then consistently confounded by self-defense arguments and the asserting party has to go, "Oh, but that's
different!"
By logical deconstruction we examine
why that case is different, and isolate that it isn't really
killing that's the issue, but
unjustly depriving someone of their life. This then leads to an examination of
when it is just to deprive someone of their life - under what circumstances has someone forfeited their right to live? What virtues or values out-weigh a man's life?
That level of clarity in the discussion is why criticism with hypothetical examples is native to their sorts of topics.
Fact: V had no idea why Elan took a prisoner, nor does he know who the prisoner is.
I'd agree with this, but for the meta-gaming involved. If you believe V acted with certainty based on valid meta-game information then this is not a moral problem. Personally, I think V made a rash assumption that just happened to be correct - way too risky.
Fact: V has no authority here to execute said prisoner when the rightful ruler of the land is ten steps away.
As V already said, he's not Hinjo's subject. They aren't even in Hinjo's lands. He's the "rightful ruler" of anyone who consents to be ruled by him. Heck, his authority as a ruler is hereditary - not moral! It is a Law / Chaos question ("Who delivers justice?") not a Good / Evil question ("What is justice?").
Fact: V kills the prisoner for no other reason than expedience. His whole justification for killing the prisoner is because it would slow him down.
To be fair, I don't think this established whether V would kill
an innocent or a
bystander for the sake of expedience. If V knows he has a capital offender on his hands (who has already confessed / been witnessed by Elan
and asserted his willingness and ability to defraud the legal system) and summarily executes the offender to focus resources on the time-sensitive mission of "saving the world," I don't see a foul. Kubato was killed justly, though not lawfully. V's logic at concluding that Kubato was such a fiend however ("He's wearing a black hat. Only villains wear black hats.") is truly disturbing.
Fact: Elan recognizes the act as evil and says as such.
Actually, before he finds out V's dubious method of reasoning he accepts the fact that Kubato got what was coming to him, though the method makes him queazy.
Fact: A non-evil act would not be seen as a problem by the paladins. Nor are all paladins "lawful stupid" as has been shown repeatedly in the strip.
No. Cadfan has already debunked this. Azure City is
Awfully Lawful - often putting Rules-for-Rules-Sake ahead of the life, liberty, and prosperity of people. Its nobles (to whom Kubato would answer) are petty and corrupt. The Paladins have a track record of being honor-bound to constantly derail Chaotic Good acts to the detriment of the fate of the world.
Killing a prisoner isn't just bad "just because". It's always bad. Full stop. It's always, 100% evil to kill a prisoner. ((Note, execute is a different story. Had they been out in the wilderness, or had there been no reasonable way to bring the baddie to justice, I'd be right with you.))
See, this is completely faulty.
1.) "Execute" is a sub-category of "killing a prisoner." (definition of the word)
2.) "Killing a prisoner is always bad."
Logic only allows 1 conclusion: Execution is always bad.
If you don't accept the conclusion that you have to recant premise 1 or 2 - or admit to abandonning rational argument. "Execute is a different story," shows us clearly that you don't actually ascribe to Premise #1.
The real question you need to answer is: "What makes 'execution' morally distinct from just 'killing a prisoner,' in your opinion?"
+ Is it the legal authority? If so, what distinguishes valid legal authority from illegitimate legal authority?
+ Is it due process? If so, what is the moral value of due process? What distinguishes due process from undue process?
+ Is it duty / moral obligation? If so, what specific values or virtues outweigh the value of a person's life?
- Marty Lund
