Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice

[JackGiantkiller]

We have a fundamental disconnect here. Some posters believe that killing is inherently evil. Some do not. The D&D rules do indeed state that killing is evil, but they also state that a paladin loses his status at the first evil act...so no paladins get past their first battle. In addition, while Raven Crowking may have intended his question to be about whether cannibalism and human sacrifice are evil in D&D, what he actually asked was if anyone could argue that they are not evil. Specifically, he referred to moral relativism, which implies that he meant * in the real world* since D&D alignment is objective.

In the real world, I do not believe that violence, or indeed, killing, are inherently evil. There are circumstances which justify their use. Many of you do not accept this...and you have every right not to. We each make our own moral choices.

I submit that we, the dissenters, have successfully argued for the possibility of non-evil, (possibly good) human sacrifice, and non-evil (even I hesitate to say good) cannibalism, and that the only thing preventing acceptance of our position is the aforementioned fundamental disconnect. Which is actually cool.

 

[fusangite]

I submit that we, the dissenters, have successfully argued for the possibility of non-evil, (possibly good) human sacrifice, and non-evil (even I hesitate to say good) cannibalism, and that the only thing preventing acceptance of our position is the aforementioned fundamental disconnect. Which is actually cool.

Good luck with that. I had really thought you supremely rational until this moment.

I've got to say I wish the alignment threads could be consolidated. Despite my low opinion of the rules at the outset, this killing thing has taken my contempt for them to the next level. I hadn't even considered it. I probably just couldn't absorb/comprehend that the rules of D&D were defining the game's central activity as evil and so kept skipping/not absorbing it in the text.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Everyone has their moments. But yes, that particular definition shook me up, a bit.

 

[Turjan]

Do not be tedious.

It was flat out written the entire posting was a joke...

Well, your first sentence was . The rest might have been a "sardonic observation", but these are usually meant to spit some acid on a certain concept (in this case "moral relativism") while trying to sound witty.

The principal failure of internet debates is the fact the major majority of those “participating” are, at best, talking past each other and at worst “debating” like the residents of an ape house at a zoo – with lots of screaming and throwing of feces. Either way, these talks are a lot like contemporary real-life political discussions.

More specifically, in terms of debating cannibalism and/or human sacrifice as morally or ethically valid, it should be decided what system we are talking about. Such as, but not limited to, traditional Christian morality, Rand selfishness, skepticism, etc. Without defining the discussion in such terms, the debate is meaningless and bound to fail because the terms employed are too fluid for any ground to be gained or lost — or for anyone to have to acknowledge ground has been gained or lost.

Well, most of the posters have actually been quite capable in defining their moral system. Most of the comments have been posted in the context of either Christian morality in the narrow sense, modern ethics (which are pretty similar but are more centered on inidvidual motives) or specific D&D ethics. Each of these approaches yields different results, and that is fine with me.

The discussion would just run in circles, with people insulting each other. And throwing poop.

It's still pretty civilized in this thread, isn't it ?

Now, please excuse me. The Christmas get-to-gather is just around the corner and the family is coming over for dinner. Fortunately, I have found some naughty teenagers and now I need to fire up my chainsaw…

I see that Christmas traditions vary quite significantly between Alabama and Arizona . Different people, different customs .

 

[Turjan]

I've got to say I wish the alignment threads could be consolidated. Despite my low opinion of the rules at the outset, this killing thing has taken my contempt for them to the next level. I hadn't even considered it. I probably just couldn't absorb/comprehend that the rules of D&D were defining the game's central activity as evil and so kept skipping/not absorbing it in the text.

I'm actually pretty surprised that so many people do not have the slightest problem with D&D's alignment system. I see it as a real pain, a constant source of metagaming. It does not make it better that we have a class that has this system as its central theme and often enough shifts the center of the game to the GM and the other players trying to make this PC fall...

Being annoyed enough with some of my players about this issue, I decided to give alignment a boot. Let the people play their characters. We are still able to recognize general moral categories as compared to the PCs' goals, even without the straitjacket of a rigid ruleset

 

[Ourph]

However, I do maintain that the act itself has no moral content, and that the morality of an event has its ground entirely in the actors involved. <snip> So the intention of both actors must be taken into account.

And this is where the moral relativists usually lose me. Moral relativism argues that intentions define the action. I disagree. Actions have value irrespective of the intentions that spawned them. Good intentions can lead to evil actions and evil intentions can lead to good actions.

Since ethics exists only when there are multiple actors involved in a situation, the agency of each actor must be considered. However, it is clear that when all actors are in agreement, there is no moral ambiguity. The question of whether something is a good or evil act only arises when the actors disagree on the best way to proceed.

I still just don't buy that. Two good intentioned people can agree to commit an evil act together. Being in agreement doesn't necessarily mean that someone isn't being harmed.

You're going to have to make a case for why such an act is evil. If you are trying to claim that killing another is always evil, in any situation, then you've got some work to do to back up that claim.

I don't make that claim. There are lots of situations where killing someone is definitely a good act. However, killing an innocent person (one for whom death isn't a consequence of their own informed actions) is, IMO, always an evil act - even if its necessary to perform some greater good and all parties agree that the act should be performed.

Consider, for example, Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian woman who was suffering from a terminal illness <snip> once she was no longer able to take her own life, she desired to die. It follows that in order for her desire to avoid either a torturous, slow death, or an early end that would deprive her of quality of life (in this case spending time with her loved ones before she goes) someone would have to kill her.

Ending someone's suffering is a good act (AFAIC). Killing an innocent person is evil. In this case, to do good, someone also had to commit evil. Helping Ms. Rodriguez to die, if that was her choice required an otherwise good person to commit a merciful, kind, compassionate act of evil. It does not make them an evil person, but the facts surrounding their act cannot change the status of their action. Ask yourself this, if someone burst into the room at the last minute and declared there was a way to end Ms. Rodriguez' suffering without killing her or hurting anyone else, would ANYONE want the euthanasia to proceed? For every good person, I'm pretty sure the answer would be no. Hopefully the same thing would go for poorl old Steve . So, ask yourself WHY we would be happy to pursue another alternative, if one presented itself. Is it because we're choosing between two good acts, or is it because we are now able to choose between a good action that requires us to commit a concurrent evil action and a good action that doesn't require a corresponding evil action? I think it's the latter.

Now, if you want to claim otherwise, you have to provide some reason why I should believe that it's an evil act. Simply saying "all killing is evil" doesn't cut it, because I happen to disagree that this is the case, and will need to be convinced by a reasoned argument. If no such argument exists, that means that the position is entirely parochial, and need not be considered.

I think you're mistaking me for a moral absolutist.

I'm not claiming that good and evil are concrete values that can be measured or proven. I'm arguing for a position that accepts the basic thesis that there are no moral absolutes, but doesn't accept the thesis that moral values only depend upon the intentions of the actors. You're taking two separate acts 1) ending someone's suffering, and 2) ending someone's life and mushing them together, claiming that the values attached to one cancel out the values attached to another (i.e. if #1 is a +50 on the "good" scale and #2 is -25 on the "evil" scale, then the overall act is a +25 "good"). You're doing so because both actions in your specific example are inextricably linked through circumstance. However, constructing a specific example in which the two actions cannot take place separately doesn't necessarily mean we can't place value judgements on them separately, especially if we can construct situations where they are separate and the value judgements become clear. Because humans are thinking, reasoning creatures we are able to look at a situation where two actions with separate value judgements are inextricably linked and make a determination (as in this case) whether the good of a good action can justify the evil of an evil action. However, justify does not equate to eliminate. The good that comes of an evil action may give ample reason for its commission, but it doesn't change the inherent value attached to the action, it only changes the value attached to the big picture outcome.

You have allowed that it wouldn't be wrong if Steve was enthusiastic about dying to save people, but not if he was only grudgingly accepting of the responsibility.

Actually, that's not really what I said. It doesn't matter whether Steve is grudging or enthusiastic. What matters is, if Steve was presented with the option of being a hero and saving the world that DIDN'T involve him dying (and didn't involve anything else that might be considered evil or off-putting) would he still choose to die? For example, if - while Steve is on the altar - a scientist discovered that Steve (and only Steve) could instead save the earth by reciting the words Klatu Verata Nikto, would Steve choose NOT to die and say the words or would he still choose to die? If Steve WANTS to die; if dying is not only the means to an end but an end desired by Steve in and of itself, then I can accept the idea that helping Steve to die would not be an evil act. But if given the option to achieve all his other ends without dying and without suffering any other undesirable consequences, Steve would choose to live, then killing Steve (even with his full consent) would be an evil act.

But I don't believe that most paladins would sacrifice an unwilling or willing innocent in order to save everyone else. I figure the paladin would put himself on the altar instead, which is a good act. Self-sacrifice to help others is always good.

Again, you're mushing together two separate acts with separate value attachments. Helping others is good, killing yourself is bad (even if it's sometimes justifiable or necessary). Sometimes the help you bring to others by doing a bad thing makes the bad thing desirable or necessary.

Only if the person not acting has sworn to act. We cannot expect or enforce "good samaritanism". This is unreasonable. We might find those who are unwilling to make sacrifices to be lacking in strength of character, but we would not characterize them as evil, just cowardly.

I think that the act of being a Paladin definitely implies a resolution to act in certain circumstances. I suppose a Paladin's code of conduct could contain only negative statements (i.e. Thou shalt not.....), but then you're basically end up with a class of Paladins who were more "do nothings" than "do gooders". The archetype of the Paladin implies that Paladins are not only compelled to avoid certain behaviors but to engage in certain, inherently "good", behaviors. So, I would argue that being a Paladin inherently requires "good samaritanism" and avoiding cowardice. YMMV.

 

[John Morrow]

The D&D rules do indeed state that killing is evil, but they also state that a paladin loses his status at the first evil act...so no paladins get past their first battle.

I think that's an overly selective and simple reading of the alignment descriptions. Let's go back and look at the whole set of descriptions, again:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

While I do think that some of that text is more sloppily written than it needs to be, I don't think its as absurd or unclear as people are claiming that it is.

First, look at the very first sentence. The word "life" is qualified by "innocent". That word appears again in the description of "neutral". Further, it says that good has a "respect for life", not that Good will not ever kill for any reason.

Second, the first paragraph talks about creatures that "debats or destroy innocent life". Later on, it mentions that Evil "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" and then points out that this may be do to a simple lack of compassion or be an actual objective. Evil doesn't simply hurt, oppress, or kill. It debases and destroys and does so out of a lack of compassion, malice, or duty in service to an Evil master.

Third, the description of Neutral points out that Neutral people "have compunctions against killing the innocent". That's not a prohibition and strongly suggests that Neutral people can and do consider and commit what is clearly murder.

So I think this argument does more to illustrate the problem with the claim that all killing is Evil (just as other examples have illustrated the problem with the claim that all oppression is Evil) rather than illustrating a particular problem with the SRD definitions of Good and Evil except, perhaps, that they aren't worded carefully enough to stand up to theological scrutiny.

I also think this illustrates the absurdity of trying to assess the morality of any abstract high-level act (e.g., "killing", "oppression", etc.). It depends on who or what is being affected, why it's being done, and also how it is being done. Killing an Evil goblin in self-defense is different than killing a harmless human child because he looked at you funny. Throwing a mass murderer in a dark dungeon is different than throwing an old man a dark dungeon because he insulted the king. Context matters. Details matter.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

In this case, killing the terminal patient and ending her pain *Are not seperate acts*. Treating the single act as two simply baffles me.

"I still just don't buy that. Two good intentioned people can agree to commit an evil act together. Being in agreement doesn't necessarily mean that someone isn't being harmed."

We're talking about the actor and the acted upon, actually, in the case of willing human safrifice, or the case of voluntary euthanasia.

"Helping others is good, killing yourself is bad (even if it's sometimes justifiable or necessary)."

See...I don't believe killing yourself is inherently wrong, either. What do you own, if not yourself, and the right to end your own existence *for whatever reason suits you.* Is it desirable...probably not. Would I encourage it? No. Would i agree with it? No. Is it evil? No.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

"So I think this argument does more to illustrate the problem with the claim that all killing is Evil (just as other examples have illustrated the problem with the claim that all oppression is Evil) rather than illustrating a particular problem with the SRD definitions of Good and Evil except, perhaps, that they aren't worded carefully enough to stand up to theological scrutiny. "

As illustrating the problem with that claim was my intent, I'm golden.

edit: And, as usual thus far, we seem to be on the same page.

 

[John Morrow]

And this is where the moral relativists usually lose me. Moral relativism argues that intentions define the action. I disagree. Actions have value irrespective of the intentions that spawned them. Good intentions can lead to evil actions and evil intentions can lead to good actions.

But I think that many people in this debate are going to the other extreme. Actions have values because of their effects, implications, and justice. Shooting a gun is not Evil. Shooting a gun at an innocent person to kill them is. It's those qualifiers that make all of the difference -- that the target is an "innocent person" and the intent is to "kill them". Change those parameters and you can change the assessment of the act. For example, I can shoot a paintball gun at an innocent person with the intent to mark them with bright green paint but that's hardly Evil. Similarly, I might shoot and kill a man who is ready to murder another and beause the target is not "innocent" in that case. Change the parameters and change the assessment.

That's not moral relativism, nor is it judging the morality of an action by its intent or the assessment of a culture. It's looking at why an act is Good, Evil, or Neutral.

Put another way, things are morally wrong for a reason. If you remove that reason, the act may no longer be wrong. If you add that reason to an otherwise Neutral or Good act, it may become Evil. It doesn't have anything to do with culture or agreement. It has to do with why things are Good or Evil.

Ending someone's suffering is a good act (AFAIC). Killing an innocent person is evil. In this case, to do good, someone also had to commit evil. Helping Ms. Rodriguez to die, if that was her choice required an otherwise good person to commit a merciful, kind, compassionate act of evil. It does not make them an evil person, but the facts surrounding their act cannot change the status of their action. Ask yourself this, if someone burst into the room at the last minute and declared there was a way to end Ms. Rodriguez' suffering without killing her or hurting anyone else, would ANYONE want the euthanasia to proceed?

What I think you are missing in this case is the answer to a fairly fundamental question -- "Why is killing an innocent person wrong?" Consider, would murder be considered a capital crime if people could be resurrected as easily as they can be in some D&D games? If I turn someone into a rock, have I murdered them if I can turn them back into living flesh?

What murder does is rob a person of their future. A terminally ill person effecively has no future, or at least much less of one. Therefore, they have much less to rob. It's also why we tend to view the death of promising children to be a greater tragedy than the death of an elderly person who has lived a long life. The child has had much more taken away from them.

Mercy killing is not considered moral by some simply because it ends suffering but because the key element, a future, is not present in the way it normally is. Give the terminally ill person their future back and a mercy killing no longer sounds reasonable to anyone. And the moral assessment changes not because the moral assessment of killing an innocent person is static but because the moral implications of killing an innocent person changes when they become terminally ill.

So, ask yourself WHY we would be happy to pursue another alternative, if one presented itself. Is it because we're choosing between two good acts, or is it because we are now able to choose between a good action that requires us to commit a concurrent evil action and a good action that doesn't require a corresponding evil action? I think it's the latter.

The key difference between an ill person in pain who will recover and a terminally ill person in pain who will not recover is their future and what future the act of killing them will rob them of. You are shifting the parameter that makes killing an innocent person wrong (that it robs them of their future). It's not a matter of choosing between two good actions or a good action and an evil action but a matter of assessing the implications of each action, regardless of how we might feel about those actions in a different context.

Killing a patient will always end their suffering. What changes in the case of a terminally ill person is not how Good ending their suffering is but how bad killing them is. In other words, killing a terminally ill innocent person is less bad than killing an innocent person with a long life ahead of them. And that's because the morality of killing a person is not static -- that's what changes if a doctor rushes in with a cure.

Please note that I am not claiming that the morality has anything to do with the intentions of the actors involved or how society feels about it.