Encounter with a good aligned vampire, what do you do?

[pawsplay]

As has been said a number of times, this is not the only way to survive. Resurrection could return her to life, and at least here it's been said that she would refuse that.

Is it more moral to be a moral cow than a moral tiger?

And in the heroic mythos, survival at all costs is cowardly and unnoble at best; a hero does what needs to be done, even if it means his or her life, not skulk around letting innocents come to harm because of their inaction.

I take it you haven't read the Odyssey. <rimshot>

 

[tomBitonti]

No, it wouldn't. If that is literally the only way to survive, it's the only way to survive. Ethical acts must always be considered in relation to genuine need. Are we evil for eating beef? Is a cow evil for eating grass cover used by insects? And what about mosquitoes, the poor things? The females drink the blood of cows, while the males drink plant sap! Is it ethical for female mosquitoes to give birth? Is it ethical to fart, considering that methane is a greenhouse gas?

Not a mode that I accept. I don't presume that survival is guaranteed, or that it justifies any action. (I do accept that there are other outlooks, and can reason within them, that's just not where I find myself.) Would I be justified in forcing another to donate blood for my operation? What about to donate a kidney? Or a heart?

Mind, though, that "evil" is game specific. The best that I can use for a real example is "wrong" (or perhaps "causing harm and to be opposed"). I don't think that I would ever actually use the idea of absolute evil in real terms.

Also, I didn't say that eating meat was evil, only that if there was no humane way to obtain the meat, then it might be evil.

Going back to the Vampire example, if they could obtain blood without causing harm, then it would be no more wrong than a person having an operation accepting blood from me. (It would be locally harmful to me, but, I would say, globally helpful, in the balance.) But what if the act of draining blood had a chance to cause a ghoulish disease? Would that be a problem? What if draining blood was accompanied by a corrupting sense of euphoria, that made further acts more likely?

... which goes to say, the details matter, and we don't have those details.

Thx!

Tom

 

[tomBitonti]

The same thing for Mills's rule-based utilitarianism. I can't construct a meanginful ethical system that requires reasonable beings to not do the things required for their basic survival.

That one made me think a bit more. I'm finding that the meaning of "reasonable" makes a big difference. A vampire (or very much so a mind flayer) is a reasoning creature. But, they are extreme types of creatures, and so, not "reasonable" by there nature.

There have been monsters created that feed on fear or terror. If they must feed on fear or terror, are they to be permitted to persist? But, that is an even more extreme example. (And, I changed the terms! Being "evil" is not the same as "not permitted to persist". I don't think that disease is evil, but I would allow a quarantine to be enacted that caused harm to innocent and potentially uninfected people.)

Going back to the vampire example, is the best question to ask "Is the vampire evil", or, can one get by with "may the vampire be permitted to exist". The second question is operative, and does not require a (perhaps artificial) abstraction as a justification.

Thx!

Tom

 

[Orius]

It's a vampire, stake it. The only good vampire is a dead vampire. Even it's it's one of those posers from Twilight, they need to be put out of my misery.

Besides, I never said I was good-aligned.

 

[jmucchiello]

Okay to address those who say I was just encouraging players to meta-game, let me explain my thought process a little more thoroughly.

In a default D&D game that uses the 3.5 rules, vampires are always evil. Every time a player character encounters a vampire in such a game, it will be evil. Every story, tale, and bit of lore about vampires depicts them as evil. Every character with knowledge (religion) will probably recognize this fact. And it is just that, a fact. There are no exceptions. "Always" is an absolute qualifier.

Just because Always in an absolute qualifier in no way, shape or form means it is a common knowledge qualifier. For me, for "always" to be absolute and common knowledge some popular deity must have prayers where common folk recite this statement of fact.

Short of that, only the characters with Knowledge (religion) could absolutely know that vampires are "always evil". And I would tag that around a DC 35 since it is an absolute positive statement of existence and they are hard to prove. A single exception disproves an absolute positive statement but a million examples is insufficient to prove an absolute positive statement.

"Hey cleric, are vampires evil?"
"All the vampires I'm aware of from the book of undeath."
"Does that mean all vampires must be evil?"
a) "yes"
b) "I assume so as I have never heard of a non-evil vampire."
c) "I don't know for sure."

I'd set the DC for answer (a) to 35 and the dc for (b) to around 20.

 

[pawsplay]

That one made me think a bit more. I'm finding that the meaning of "reasonable" makes a big difference. A vampire (or very much so a mind flayer) is a reasoning creature. But, they are extreme types of creatures, and so, not "reasonable" by there nature.

Ethical systems that require creatures to not survive lead to all sorts of logical self-nullifications. For instance, if you have a duty to help others, how can letting yourself starve possibly be considered conducive to doing your duty? Once you are dead, you are incapable of further action.

Does drinking a human's blood justify the death penalty, each and every time?

Let's say you counter: okay, what if they have the option not to be a vampire? I counter with, didn't that soccer team, or that prospecting party, or the crew of that sailship, have the opportunity to just stay home?

If ethically, you are deontological... telling the vampire they must die is self-negating; it is not something that can be willed, since you would not will that all creatures cease existing if any of them caused harm to others.
If you are utilitarian... telling the vampire they must die overlooks the possibility that their existence may lead to greater good.
If you are a virtues-based ethicist... telling the vampire they must be murderous toward themselves
If you are a pragmatic ethicisit... telling the vampire they must die is the same as saying a vampire must not be a vampire, which is a contradiction.

Now, you can construct scenarios where according to divine command, the vampire must die, in which case you would have to demonstrate that there is a heavenly reward for the vampire's obedience. Depending on the precise belief system, it may be that the vampire may not commit suicide, yet others are required to destroy it; that would be a "greater purpose" argument and is probably not persuasive unless you can be absolutely sure, in a theological sense, that vampires exist to be staked and only to be staked. This requires a stronger argument than that vampires are Evil, as Evil itself may serve a greater purpose.

Or you can say vampires have no free will, which invalidates the example that started this thread.

 

[tomBitonti]

If ethically, you are deontological... telling the vampire they must die is self-negating; it is not something that can be willed, since you would not will that all creatures cease existing if any of them caused harm to others.
If you are utilitarian... telling the vampire they must die overlooks the possibility that their existence may lead to greater good.
If you are a virtues-based ethicist... telling the vampire they must be murderous toward themselves
If you are a pragmatic ethicisit... telling the vampire they must die is the same as saying a vampire must not be a vampire, which is a contradiction.

All of this is interesting, from a theory point of view, but, (in my view), there may be specific features of the dilemma which do not require a resort to this level of abstraction.

For example, I can conceive of examples where a person would sacrifice themselves for what they perceive as a "greater good". Or for their child. Or would make a small sacrifice locally for a perceived global good (such as my example of giving blood: It hurts, and I don't like doing it, but I find an overall good in giving blood, nevertheless.)

Also, (I think), you have to put more features in the Vampire's state: Actions do carry consequences to the state of the actor. Usually, a person cannot wholly forget or ignore the consequence of their actions. They don't act as simple logical machines, and must bear the memory of their actions. A vampire who kills their spouse because they could not otherwise survive might find their existence unbearable. On the other hand, a Vampire who must survive, and who drains the blood of an innocent, because that is necessary to prevent a greater harm (think Blade, in the first movie, where he drains blood from his companion close to the end), that could be justified. In my view, there are so many details of this to consider that they overwhelm an abstract method to telling correctness.

... which gets me back to a statement of "it depends".

One difference, I'm thinking, is whether there are scenarios where a person would (from their point of view) think of a good arising from their death, one which would cause a better result than if they survived. That does beg the question of whether that outlook is rational (or even sane), but that seems to be a key question to be answered.

To make a contrived example, we are on a spaceship, with barely enough food for us to reach a destination. Just so much food, water, air, and power to go around. There is an accident, and I have to enter the reaction chamber to fix it, but thereby expose myself to a large amount of radiation. Not enough to immediately kill me, but enough that I'll need more than my ration of supplied to survive to reach the destination. I could survive, but only by taking a larger share of rations, and most likely preventing another from reaching the destination. In this case, what should be done? Am I to be permitted to survive by causing another death? Would it matter what decisions were made before I volunteered to fix the reactor? What if I needed the resources of several people, not just of one, such that my survival would cause multiple deaths? What if I had key skills to help prevent an outbreak of a disease at our destination, and if I didn't reach the destination, thousands might die?

Thanks!

Tom

 

[pawsplay]

... which gets me back to a statement of "it depends".

One difference, I'm thinking, is whether there are scenarios where a person would (from their point of view) think of a good arising from their death, one which would cause a better result than if they survived. That does beg the question of whether that outlook is rational (or even sane), but that seems to be a key question to be answered.

Right, but if you rule out the necessity of survival in the first place, you would be saying, "It doesn't depend." Of course it depends. But it can't depend if you say, "You do not have the right to survive."

 

[tomBitonti]

Right, but if you rule out the necessity of survival in the first place, you would be saying, "It doesn't depend." Of course it depends. But it can't depend if you say, "You do not have the right to survive."

I think I would say that it depends on more than whether or not the vampire survives. (Of course, relative to features are decided as important, by the system that is being used.) This seems to get into a "if I'm not around to be affected by the outcome, because I didn't survive, then how can any of that outcome matter to me, and so why should it influence what I am to do" type of problem. If I must survive for the morality to matter, then my survival becomes a predicate for any action. I see that as possible viable basis, but see also that there could be more to consider.

Not sure if I want to get into a discussion on "rights". You probably would imagine I don't follow the usual thinking in terms of what rights a person has, and you would be correct. Way to much baggage there for my tastes. At this level, I find a statement like "One has a right to survive" to be like saying "One has a right not to be subject to gravity". I don't find any meaning in the statement. Having a right to free speech, or to survive, say, is a political statement, and (in my mind) very contextual. Or rather, I don't look at rights as primitive statements (meaning atomic, non-divisible ones), but as complex issues having a meaning in a larger social context.

Thx!

Tom

 

[pawsplay]

IOr rather, I don't look at rights as primitive statements (meaning atomic, non-divisible ones), but as complex issues having a meaning in a larger social context.

I don't either. I'm saying that any ethical system that imposes a duty on a being not to exist, a priori, is self-defeating.