Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice

[barsoomcore]

If these things are not evil, than nothing is - and you really need to ask yourselves (not me) if you can really think that NOTHING is evil.

Have done so. Have determined that nothing is evil. Hope that helps.

There can be exceptions to any standard or more - but that's not adequate reason to pretend that those standards and mores do not exist.

Which standards and mores? The ones you agree with? Or the ones that guy over there agrees with? What's that? You can't tell which ones that guy agrees with because even if he tells you, there's no way to know he isn't lying or mistaken? In fact, it's not even possible for you to know which ones YOU agree with yourself, since you're capable of lying to yourself or even being mistaken about your own internal state? So it's entirely possible that you and that guy have 100% different standards and mores? So there's no way for me to decide between such standards and mores as YOU think are universal, and such as he does?

Huh.

Sorry, carry on. Human sacrifice? Evil. Cannibalism? Evil. Any other questions.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As D&D uses Christian ethics, and this in an absolute manner, you may be right.

Take note, however, that in the bible, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was right and good that Abraham do so, because the standard of morality is set by the author of existence. So if God tells you to sacrifice your child, that is the right thing to do, and no argument can change that absolute fact of moral reality. This is the problem with absolutist morality, being the polar opposite of moral relativism. As usual, the middle way is the wisest path.

Luckily for Abraham, God was all "psyyyyyche! I was just messin' with ya, dude."

(edit)

Oh, and on the subject of the morality of human sacrifice...someone was trying to argue that human sacrifice is never a good thing, even if the sacrifice himself agrees with the act. Well, consider the archetype of the selfless hero, who rides off to CERTAIN DOOM in order to attempt to save the innocent people who would otherwise be destroyed. That's human sacrifice if I ever saw it, there's just nobody with an altar and a knife.

 

[fusangite]

Oh, and on the subject of the morality of human sacrifice...someone was trying to argue that human sacrifice is never a good thing, even if the sacrifice himself agrees with the act. Well, consider the archetype of the selfless hero, who rides off to CERTAIN DOOM in order to attempt to save the innocent people who would otherwise be destroyed. That's human sacrifice if I ever saw it, there's just nobody with an altar and a knife.

Beautiful post Dr. Awkward.

This is what I was getting at with my comments about the Mexica priests. What they are doing, in some cases, is aiding and abetting a selfless act of self-sacrifice. Someone competes for the opportunity to give his life to save the world and the priests aid him in achieving his goal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, and on the subject of the morality of human sacrifice...someone was trying to argue that human sacrifice is never a good thing, even if the sacrifice himself agrees with the act. Well, consider the archetype of the selfless hero, who rides off to CERTAIN DOOM in order to attempt to save the innocent people who would otherwise be destroyed. That's human sacrifice if I ever saw it, there's just nobody with an altar and a knife.

Sorry, I cannot answer your Abraham comment without severely violating the "no religion" rule, save to say that, within the D&D alignment system and most reasonable codes of real world ethics, that was an evil act.

I do argue that sacrificing another human being can never be a good act, even if the victim concurs. At least this is certainly the case in the D&D alignment system. The victim's choice to be sacrificed for the good of others, however, is a good act.

A simple example of this occurs in the film, X-Men, wherein Magneto decides to sacrifice Rogue "for the good of mutantkind." Wolverine rightly notes that, if Magneto were truly good, he would sacrifice himself instead.

The term "human sacrifice" implies that the sacrifice is being performed by someone other than the victim. I am pretty sure that you know this. There is a world of [alignment] difference between sacrificing oneself and sacrificing another.

Necessity may force good people to perform evil acts. However, if a paladin's hand is on the blade, he would surely lose his paladinhood.

Personally, I think this discussion would benefit from some concensus on what a good act is, let alone an evil act.


RC

 

[Tonguez]

Luckily for Abraham, God was all "psyyyyyche! I was just messin' with ya, dude."

LOL! Truely mysterious ways!

(ok no other comment for fear of derailment)

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is what I was getting at with my comments about the Mexica priests. What they are doing, in some cases, is aiding and abetting a selfless act of self-sacrifice. Someone competes for the opportunity to give his life to save the world and the priests aid him in achieving his goal.

Okay, Fusangite, let's examine your Mexica priests.

Rough run-down as I understand it was that a human sacrifice was required annually to keep the sun moving in the sky, thus preventing the destruction of the world. The victim was chosen by competition (people wanted to be the victim), given a year of great honor, and then ritually sacrificed. Or, at least, that's the best version of it, as opposed to sacrifice of your neighboring people, which also occurred.

Now, the victim is given a year where his every wish is granted because the populace recognized that what he is doing is a very good and noble act. He is sacrificing himself to keep the world safe.

What the priests are doing is, they believe, necessary. They believe that it is proper. They believed also, I contend, that it was evil, and that the year of honoring their victim was an attempt to ameliorate that evil.

In other words, it had to be done, but it wasn't a "good" act. Volunteering (and thus saving everyone else) was a good act. Taking the training to perform the ritual so that everyone else could survive was probably a neutral act -- it wasn't selfless; there were a lot of benefits. Plunging the obsidian knife in was necessary, but evil. And the priest, probably LN in D&D terms, knew it.


RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The term "human sacrifice" implies that the sacrifice is being performed by someone other than the victim. I am pretty sure that you know this.

Say what now? No it doesn't. You've been watching Temple of Doom too much. It implies that a sacrifice is being made, and that the sacrifice is a human life. I can sacrifice my life for a cause, or to save another, or I can be made sacrifice by someone else, with or without my consent.

The thing it boils down to is consent. Sex is rape without consent, but with consent it's a wonderful thing. Likewise with sacrifice. If you give up something dear to you in order to help others, that's pretty much universally regarded as good. If what you give up is your life, that's extra good. If the way you need to give up your life is to fly into space and do battle with evil aliens, you can be assisted in making your sacrifice by some rocket engineers. If what you need to do is spill your blood across a special altar, you can be assisted in making your sacrifice by some priest with a knife. Same sacrifice, different means of accomplishing it. But the moral status of the act is not determined by whether or not you die, but whether you lay down your life, or it's taken from you.

Necessity may force good people to perform evil acts. However, if a paladin's hand is on the blade, he would surely lose his paladinhood.

Paladins are constantly sticking out their necks to save others, with the full knowledge that it will probably end up killing them, because evil is violent. They sacrifice themselves for the common good. It's human sacrifice as surely as if they were giving their blood on an altar to prevent the evil earth serpent from devouring all creation. The mechanics are different, but the intent is the same: to give up one's life to help others. In fact, I would expect a paladin to be first in line to lay down on that altar if he thought he could save people by doing it. That's what it means to be good: to be willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of others.

Aside: I notice nobody started hitting the panic button when we were talking about ancient Mexican religious practices.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In other words, it had to be done, but it wasn't a "good" act. Volunteering (and thus saving everyone else) was a good act. Taking the training to perform the ritual so that everyone else could survive was probably a neutral act -- it wasn't selfless; there were a lot of benefits. Plunging the obsidian knife in was necessary, but evil. And the priest, probably LN in D&D terms, knew it.

The priest didn't "know it." We could imagine that such a priest might be filled with gratitude and awe. This would be directed at the sacrificial hero, who is laying down his life to save the world again this year, but perhaps also gratitude that he be allowed to perform the sacred actions of carrying out the ritual. Such actions are unbelievably holy and exalted, for they are the means by which the world is preserved. As he lowers the knife into the brave sacrificial hero, a tear of joy forms in his eye, and he feels a fellowship with all people, who will live for another year because of his ritual actions. He feels a little sad too, because when the hero dies, not only will it be a personal sacrifice of his own life, but everyone else will be making a sacrifice too, in losing a great man from this world.

You have not made a convincing case that the sacrifice is an evil act, because I can just rewrite the motivations and make it a good act, like so. You imply that the priest feels guilty or knows that he's doing wrong. I say that he feels full of the glory of goodness. There's no reason to think that either one is a more likely story than the other.

This implies that what makes this a good or evil act is the intention of the person with the knife. If he believes that his act will save the world, and feels that it is not only his duty, but a sacred trust with all people, it's definitely a good act. If he doesn't really believe in all that earth serpent stuff and he's really only doing the sacrifice because he knows that it's a stepping stone to becoming a person of status and power in his society, and thinks that the sacrificial hero is stupid for laying down his life for others, it's probably an evil act.

Which brings me to the point, which is that the moral status of an act lies not in the act, but in the actor. A flying rock that strikes and kills someone is not evil in itself. A rock thrown out of anger and spite is, but a rock idly tossed into a seemingly empty area isn't. The act is the same but the moralilty of the situation will be found in the person who carries out the act and what they believed they were accomplishing.

 

[Trickstergod]

Human sacrifice?

If the victim is willing then, no, not evil. For either party. Now, if the priest were ever to sacrifice an unwilling victim...sure, that'd be evil. No doubts there. But if the priest only sacrificed willing sacrifices, then yes, I do believe that priest could very well maintain a good alignment. Especially if the priest were willing to be the sacrifice were no one else willing to act as one.

I'll also state that in regards to evil individuals and the like being sacrificed: In cases like that, human sacrifice is exactly the same as capital punishment, only with the attachment of serving some higher purpose. I do apologize for skirting on politics like this; hopefully it won't blow up. Anyway, I'm not going to say whether it's good or evil in this case - simply that human sacrifice and capital punishment can be exceptionally similar.

As for cannibalism?

Evil...? No, not necessarily. Gross? Sure. Killing people just to eat them? Yeah, sure, evil. But eating people that are already dead or that you killed for some reason other than to eat them? Well, I don't find the act of cannibalism in and of itself evil. However, I will say that any societally acceptable form of cannibalism can lead to all kinds of problems (namely social ones as opposed to physical; personally, I think if someone wants to put holes in their brain, more power to them) thus why it should be forbidden, but I don't find the act in and of itself morally repugnant. Not in all cases, anyway.

Then again, I play lots of Nethack, and while eating your own race is still bad, my characters have eaten any number of dwarves, gnomes, elves and hobbits...

 

[Trickstergod]

Oh, and as for human sacrifice that has to be done to avert a cataclysm: if the victim is unwilling, it's evil. A necessary evil, perhaps, but still an evil. Of course, those people who are unwilling to be sacrificed to begin with are arguably doing an evil act, but killing them anyway for it would leave a moral stain on the priest.

Presuming, of course, there weren't other circumstances.

As far as I'm concerned, anyway.