Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice

[cmanos]

Reading through some of these "Is This Evil?" threads -- most recently about slavery -- has made me wonder how far EnWorlders are willing to push moral relativism. For example, is there anyone here who would be willing to argue that cannibalism and human sacrifice are not evil?

all depends on whom you are killing and eating...

I could think of a certain world leader....never mind....

 

[Sejs]

Killing; the simple act of taking another being's life, without getting into any details about what/where/when/why/who/how, is not evil. The base action of taking a life is neutral.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not true. If I had to kill Steve the Gardener to prevent Cthulhu from entering the world and laying waste to all living things upon the earth, I would recognize that...

1) What I was doing was not only my duty, but a sacred trust with all people.

2) What I was doing was an evil act.

3) Steve the Gardener would have every right to hate me for my evil act.

4) Steve was still going to be dead meat (Die Steve Die!!!), even though I'd feel REALLY REALLY bad about it afterward.

5) One evil act does not necessarily make me an evil person.

But here you're changing the framework of the problem. I gave you an example in which the sacrificial hero puts himself on the altar and would perform the killing himself if not for the fact that a ritual must be performed. He's willing to die. You give me back a situation in which the sacrifice is being made against the victim's will. This changes the motivations of the actors, and therefore changes the moral status of the act. As I said above, the motivation of the actor is what matters, not that someone dies. If you force someone to become a sacrifice, that's evil. If they volunteer, it's not.

If you're going to provide a counter-argument, you have to show how and why it is evil to sacrifice someone who agrees with the process. I have already stated that if the sacrifice is unwilling, it's evil. Your job, if you want to maintain the "all sacrifice" is evil stance, is to eliminate the possibility of counterexamples that contradict that stance. I have provided a counterexample. You need to show how my counterexample is self-contradictory. Providing a counter-counterexample in which you change the parameters of the model does not accomplish this. You need to show that it is always wrong to perform a sacrifice.

Now, let's say that science has proven that Cthulhu is coming, and that the only way to stop his arrival is to kill Mr. Gardener. The world sends you to ask him whether he will volunteer to be sacrificed in order to save everyone. Mr. Gardener thinks about it, and then agrees that it's for the best. He comes back with you to a hastily-built altar, where the press is waiting. They interview him, and a group of world leaders personally thank him for making his noble sacrifice. Saying one last good-bye to the cameras, Mr. Gardener lays down on the altar and invites you to plunge the knife into his chest. You do so, saving the world, and obeying Mr. Gardener's wishes. This is not an evil act. Perhaps a bit disturbing, if you're squeamish or personally attached to Mr. Gardener, but not evil. The act was completely consentual, the decision made by sound consideration, and the whole undertaking was made with the greater good in mind.

In other words, if a Paladin is willing to sacrifice his life in order to preserve the lives of innocents, he should also be willing to sacrifice his Paladinhood for the same cause.

That might be true in theory, but not in practice. What is it that makes a paladin lose his paladinhood? Performing an evil act. But a paladin isn't going to choose to perform an evil act. He'll choose to take the path of goodness. Certainly, volunteering to die in order to save someone else isn't an evil act. Otherwise there would be no paladins anywhere, simply by definition. As soon as one decided to go and be heroic, he'd lose his paladinhood. So if a paladin chooses to do something evil in order to save someone, sure he'll lose his status. But if he lays down his life for the good of others, his status will remain intact.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If I help you kill yourself, at best I am performing a neutral act. The neutrality of the act relies upon either (1) the fact that you are going to die anyway (Spock's death at the end of Wrath of Khan; potentially some forms of assisted suicide) or (2) uncertainty that the outcome is your death (defense of Helm's Deep); either one coupled with (3) I cannot simply take your place (I cannot take on your incurable disease; it requires lots of people to defend the helpless), (4) you consent with reasonable knowledge of what you are consenting to, and (5) I do not kill you myself.

Exactly. Performing a sacrifice with the consent of the sacrificee is at worst neutral. That's what I've been saying. I'm glad to see you have come to agree with me. I would go as far as to say that it can even be a good act. For example, if you believe that the sacrificee will return someday in order to save the world again (a la Neo from the Matrix), then you do not believe that you are ending his life (whether you're correct or not). This means that you believe that you're not taking a life, and so the wrongness of even a consentual killing is removed.

In D&D, being unwilling to be sacrificed is neutral, not evil. Sacrificing others is evil.

And in the real world too. Nobody can be reasonably expected to make the sacrifice, but only praised for their decision to do so. That's why it's so special: because we do not have the right to demand that anyone do it, but someone takes that burden upon themselves anyway.

 

[Ourph]

But here you're changing the framework of the problem. I gave you an example in which the sacrificial hero puts himself on the altar and would perform the killing himself if not for the fact that a ritual must be performed. He's willing to die. You give me back a situation in which the sacrifice is being made against the victim's will.
<snip>
If you're going to provide a counter-argument, you have to show how and why it is evil to sacrifice someone who agrees with the process.

I wasn't taking exception with your entire thesis, just the assertion I quoted, which was:

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 you meant this only in terms of the person with the knife doing harm to himself, then I misunderstood. However, if it applies to someone with a knife harming others, I would still assert that no matter what his beliefs are, if the harm is against an innocent person then the act is evil, no matter what good motivations may be behind it. Believing that your actions are good is not the fulcrum on which a judgement about whether an act is good or evil should be balanced. If so, we would have to say that all murders committed by people under the influence of a psychosis that makes them believe they are committing an act of good, are actually acts of good (simply because the person was under the impression that they were acting in a good manner at the time). It's an unreasonable standard that doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny.

Now, let's say that science has proven that Cthulhu is coming, and that the only way to stop his arrival is to kill Mr. Gardener. The world sends you to ask him whether he will volunteer to be sacrificed in order to save everyone. Mr. Gardener thinks about it, and then agrees that it's for the best. He comes back with you to a hastily-built altar, where the press is waiting. They interview him, and a group of world leaders personally thank him for making his noble sacrifice. Saying one last good-bye to the cameras, Mr. Gardener lays down on the altar and invites you to plunge the knife into his chest. You do so, saving the world, and obeying Mr. Gardener's wishes. This is not an evil act. Perhaps a bit disturbing, if you're squeamish or personally attached to Mr. Gardener, but not evil. The act was completely consentual, the decision made by sound consideration, and the whole undertaking was made with the greater good in mind.

I would still argue that the act is evil. Again, it doesn't necessarily make the sacrificor an "evil person", but the act itself is evil. Killing an innocent person, even with their consent and for a good reason, is evil. It's a necessary evil brought about by the possibility of an even greater evil occurring if the act isn't performed, but it remains evil. The fact is, Steve doesn't really WANT to die. He may be WILLING to die, but he's not really thrilled about sacrificing himself. In order for such a sacrifice to even approach non-evil status, the sacrificee would need to WANT to die, not just be willing to take one for the team.

That might be true in theory, but not in practice. What is it that makes a paladin lose his paladinhood? Performing an evil act. But a paladin isn't going to choose to perform an evil act. He'll choose to take the path of goodness.

Sometimes there is no path of goodness. Sometimes the only way to avoid committing an evil act is to avoid acting altogether. If not acting allows evil to occur, the Paladin has made a selfish decision to preserve his own purity while sacrificing the interests of others. Sometimes, even not acting may qualify as an evil act (a sin of omission, rather than a sin of commission).

Certainly, volunteering to die in order to save someone else isn't an evil act.

Totally agree.

But if he lays down his life for the good of others, his status will remain intact.

Again, I totally agree. I'm not arguing that Steve is committing an evil act by agreeing to be sacrificed (if Steve were a Paladin instead of a Gardener, his status would remain intact), but the person performing the sacrifice is, IMO, committing a perfectly justifiable, reasonable, well intentioned, socially acceptable evil act.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you meant this only in terms of the person with the knife doing harm to himself, then I misunderstood. However, if it applies to someone with a knife harming others, I would still assert that no matter what his beliefs are, if the harm is against an innocent person then the act is evil, no matter what good motivations may be behind it. Believing that your actions are good is not the fulcrum on which a judgement about whether an act is good or evil should be balanced. If so, we would have to say that all murders committed by people under the influence of a psychosis that makes them believe they are committing an act of good, are actually acts of good (simply because the person was under the impression that they were acting in a good manner at the time). It's an unreasonable standard that doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny.

That's not exactly what I'm trying to claim. Of course a moral act has to have some correspondence to some factual status of the outside world, otherwise we end up with a kind of ethical solipsism. 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. In the case of the sacrifice, what makes it a good act is not that the person performing the sacrifice believes that it is good, but that the person being sacrificed also believes that it is good. The morality of the situation involves more than one actor, which is always the case since ethics cannot exist without multiple actors. So the intention of both actors must be taken into account. In this case, both individuals agree on a course of action, and no "foul" is committed so long as this condition is met.

If, for example, the situation were that one actor decided that it was right to sacrifice the other, and the other decided that he didn't want to die, then we have a situation in which consent is not given. One actor believes one thing, and the other believes another. In situations like this, we usually make reference to the rights of each actor. As I have pointed out, it is generally unreasonable to demand that anyone give up their life in order to save another. The sacrificer has no right to demand this of the sacrificee. The sacrificee has the right to refuse or comply as he desires, since he is the "owner" of his life. To overturn the sacrificee's right to refuse is unjust, and therefore to do so is an evil act. This applies even if one actor is unaware of the ethical situation. We must consider what each actor would will if they were made aware of what's going on. This means that it's still evil to kill someone who "never sees it coming."

This, of course, gets quite complicated. 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 would still argue that the act is evil. Again, it doesn't necessarily make the sacrificor an "evil person", but the act itself is evil. Killing an innocent person, even with their consent and for a good reason, is evil.

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.

Consider, for example, Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian woman who was suffering from a terminal illness that would cause the gradual paralysis of her body over time, eventually resulting in complete physical catatonia with complete mental clarity. Finally she would die of suffocation as her lungs failed slowly. This would be a torturous, tormenting way to die, and she desired to end her life before then. However, she only wanted to die at the point at which her existence became unbearable. So during the time in which she was physically able to take her own life, she didn't want to die. But 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.

This eventually did happen. The courts ruled that they could not allow that such a killing be made legal due to the legal problems it would cause by making a precedent that allows the killing of another. This was probably a wise decision, since it likely prevented abuse and misapplication of the precedent that would be created. However, someone did, in secret, provide Ms. Rodriguez with a lethal injection that ended her life. She and her family were quite happy about this, and it saved her from essentially being tortured to death. I claim that killing her at the time and place of her choosing is a good act.

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.

It's a necessary evil brought about by the possibility of an even greater evil occurring if the act isn't performed, but it remains evil. The fact is, Steve doesn't really WANT to die. He may be WILLING to die, but he's not really thrilled about sacrificing himself. In order for such a sacrifice to even approach non-evil status, the sacrificee would need to WANT to die, not just be willing to take one for the team.

Fine. Let's say Steve thinks that this is the best thing that ever happened to him. He gets to go out with a bang and be a hero. Not many people get that opportunity, and he's going to sieze it with both hands. In hypothetical situations like this, we're best off looking at unambiguous cases. If the claim is that "killing another is always wrong", we can disprove the claim by showing a situation in which it is not wrong. 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. That means that you cannot consistently claim that killing another is always wrong. If you're going to instead claim that it is wrong to kill Steve even if he loves the idea, then you're going to have to explain why.

Sometimes there is no path of goodness. Sometimes the only way to avoid committing an evil act is to avoid acting altogether. If not acting allows evil to occur, the Paladin has made a selfish decision to preserve his own purity while sacrificing the interests of others.

That assumes that to act would be to perform an evil act. I continue to claim that if by acting, the paladin ends his own life in order to save others, that no evil act has occurred. If the paladin is the one performing the sacrifice, whether an evil act has occurred depends on whether the sacrificee agrees with the act (we can assume the paladin believes that the act is necessary, else he wouldn't be doing it). 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.

Sometimes, even not acting may qualify as an evil act (a sin of omission, rather than a sin of commission).

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.

 

[fusangite]

Raven,

I stand corrected. You are quite right. Killing is always evil in D&D -- I re-read the rules. But why do you suppose it is that 75% of feats, 50% of spells and over half of the text in the PHB is about ways your character can do evil? Isn't most level advancement in most classes (paladins included) simply about getting more proficient at committing evil acts?

According to the letter of the rules, the main occupation (not purpose) of most PCs is to do evil things. Do you see this as a problem?

And isn't it odd that the most fleshed-out part of the experience system is about rewarding people for committing evil acts? Are we not in danger of running games whose rules encourage people to behave in ways that they themselves define as evil?

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I don't see any hint for such a notion in this thread.

Do not be tedious.

It was flat out written the entire posting was a joke, with the first section being a deliberate and stated reference to a Monty Python sketch on cannibalism. The last part was a sardonic observation.

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.

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

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…

 

[fusangite]

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…

Good luck out there -- you better make sure they don't have any chainsaws of their own. As my holiday meal guests so often say, "Nice meal Stuart. And does taste remarkably like human flesh."

 

[barsoomcore]

My holiday meal guests are silent. But they taste GREAT with a little barbecue sauce...