D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

[Gradine]

My opinion will almost always be on the side of "let people enjoy things".

That door swings both ways though.

 

[Reynard]

Looks to the left, looks to the right and then back in this topic.

There is a surprisingly lack of milestone, Wilds Beyond the Witchlight, and "orcs/drow are problematic" players in this thread and I'm kinda shocked.

Especially after reading a number of posts/threads on there.

Also: I can't believe Reynard is Goblin Slayer!

Stomper.

 

[Scribe]

"You throw the switch and kill the one person. Why is this even a problem?" wouldn't you find it a little...strange?

Not particularly?

Trolley problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Survey data[edit]​

The trolley problem has been the subject of many surveys in which about 90% of respondents have chosen to kill the one and save the five.[27] If the situation is modified where the one sacrificed for the five was a relative or romantic partner, respondents are much less likely to be willing to sacrifice the one life.[28]

A 2009 survey by David Bourget and David Chalmers shows that 69.9% of professional philosophers would switch (sacrifice the one individual to save five lives) in the case of the trolley problem, 8% would not switch, and the remaining 24% had another view or could not answer.[29]

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Not particularly?

Trolley problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm in the 8% that wouldn't switch because if I do so I'm casually responsible for killing someone. While my lack of action is a choice, I'm not causally responsible for the situation itself. Some people, like myself, hew toward the "cause no harm" principle rather than the "prevent as much harm as possible" principle. An extreme pacifist would be an example of the former.

 

[Umbran]

...but, your posturing is HILARIOUSLY obvious given your high-school/layperson grasp on this topic.

Mod Note:
Insults? You're done in this discussion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My opinion will almost always be on the side of "let people enjoy things".

If that were true my attempts at humor wouldn't keep getting smacked down by a certain (humorless?) moderator.

Not particularly?

Trolley problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think maybe you're not understanding my question. It's not about arriving at that answer; it's about arriving at that answer without emotion.

 

[Scribe]

I'm in the 8% that wouldn't switch because if I do so I'm casually responsible for killing someone.

Fair, but when I can take 5 seconds and find (yes its wikipedia...) a source indicating 90% would go with 'yeah 1 guy path'.

Well, no I'm not surprised.

 

[Scribe]

It's not about arriving at that answer; it's about arriving at that answer without emotion.

Emotional about a hypothetical? I think not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Emotional about a hypothetical? I think not.

Ok, well, good to know.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You asked about genocide.

Genocide is a specific term with a specific meaning. Blowing up a station full of X will never be genocide unless it is part of a campaign (organised or otherwise) to do away with X, and where X is something people can't choose whether they are or not (usually a race or species).

There's a bit of morality that I don't know the exact term for (perhaps a philosopher can help us out), where the morality or ethics of behaviour is subject to what's happening to you, and what choices you have. With your specific Death Star example, the Death Star had, already been used to perform mass slaughter (possibly genocide, I know nothing about the composition of the people who lived on Alderaan) of an almost unimaginable scale. There was no conventional military solution. The Death Star was so massive, so heavily armed, so superior to the forces opposed against it that it could not simply be "taken" or defeated in a conventional way.

The only avenue available to the rebels was to cause it to explode. I'm sure some of them had relatives, maybe friends aboard said Death Star. But the choices were:

A) Allow the Death Star to destroy our base AND then to proceed to destroy whatever else the Emperor wishes.

or

B) Attempt to cause the Death Star to explode, undoubtedly killing some civilians, people forced and brainwashed to work there, and so on.

There was no:

C) Simply defeat the Death Star and overwhelm it, then decide the fate of the people manning it.

I thought genocide was the extermination of a population, not a species. Otherwise, no has ever committed genocide (since the human race is still here).