Ethics of Killing POWs

[moritheil]

Unfortunately, no. We can't agree on the first part, because I wouldn't consider any species without abstract thought (as an adult) to be within humanity/personhood/sentience/scifi fantasy term of choice, so uncivilized is redundant of their state. It's like saying "cows are uncivilized." Technically true, but useless. We can't agree on the second part, because it leaves no useful definition of an uncivilized human. Conan, for example, was civilized from the get go by that usage. The fricking ravagers of Firefly, who were flesh wearing, cannibal lunatics were civilized flesh wearing cannibal lunatics.

No, the opposite of civilized is barbaric, not non-sentient.

So you agree, but argue that it's meaningless.

Well, then. I am not going to convince you of anything, but I will try to make my point a little more understandable instead of the caricature you take it to be.

Insofar as Conan, no, I don't think he's capable of real abstract thought. Superstition is not the same as developed abstract reasoning. You may argue that he is civilized in that he comes from a tribal sort of civilization, sure. The ravagers have some semblance of civilization in that they all have roles and fill them, though the ends they work towards are horrific. In terms of abstract reasoning, I very much doubt that they sit around arguing law or philosophy, though. Neither Conan nor the Ravagers have a true civilization of the sort that produces ethics, which seems to me to be actually what you are arguing.

It occurs to me that we seem to be equating the potential for abstract thought with the development of that potential, and that is imprecise. Does Conan have the biological potential for abstract thought? Sure. But he's not really using it at the level needed for something like formal ethics to arise. Nor does he have the conceptual tools needed to formulate ethics. The Ravagers, too, don't have any concept of a code of conduct beyond "killing people and eating them is good." They have abandoned the conceptual framework upon which ethics is built. I would argue that that is basically equivalent to no ethics.


My question, incidentally, was meant to be a baseline to establish a further point. I note how you jumped in at the chance to end all discussion.

As to civilization, I agree definitions might vary, but can we agree that living beings without language, without abstract thought, and without laws are uncivilized, and that abstract thought, language, and laws are at least closely associated with civilization, if not causal?

If so, I would point out that the idea of ethics itself is pretty abstract. I don't mean the simple level of reasoning that dictates something like, "If you do X, you will be punished, so don't do it." That does not involve ethics; it is a practical decision.

 

[moritheil]

Now I don't view chaotic as being an anarchist. I view it as a person who puts personal choice above following the law.

Your objection is merely a matter of degree, then, is it not? The active anarchist views his or her priorities as important enough to impose on the world; the other simply doesn't think it worth the hassle of fighting for. Both can still be the same alignment.

 

[haakon1]

The game isn't called Peacekeeping & Politics, there are no standards like the Geneva Convention. If they aren't ransomable they aren't going to be taken prisoner, though they might be made slaves (this is where many ancient cultures got the majority of their slaves via capture during war). And if they're too much inconvenience they'll be killed anyway as more trouble than they're worth.

It's also not called Slavertraders and Genocide. Gygax designed it as a game of heroic fantasy, where the heroes are meant to be good, and Gary's definition of the good, like mine, has nothing to do with post modernism or moral relativism. But I must admit, current American culture seems to prefer anti-heroes to heroes, so perhaps your view is more fitting for the current game. (An image of knights in shining armor form the Greyhawk boxed set versus 3e illos of PCs with black spikey armor, tats, piercings, and bondage gear occurs to me.)

Anyhow, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Tolkien or Star Wars or old school Star Trek ethics seem more suitable to me than do the ethics of "24", but everybody games as they like.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My question, incidentally, was meant to be a baseline to establish a further point. I note how you jumped in at the chance to end all discussion.

*shurg* I'm afraid you didn't communicate that to me. I never jump at a chance to end discussion, I simply responded to your question. If you didn't like the answer, I'm sorry.

I'm afraid, however, that the levels at which I don't agree with most of your further arguments seem too basic to make continued conversation, well, fun. And since I'm not getting course credit for this thread, I'm not going to chase definitions down the rabbit hole when I could be spending the time arguing the 1-2-1-2 diagonal rule.

 

[moritheil]

*shurg* I'm afraid you didn't communicate that to me. I never jump at a chance to end discussion, I simply responded to your question. If you didn't like the answer, I'm sorry.

I'm afraid, however, that the levels at which I don't agree with most of your further arguments seem too basic to make continued conversation, well, fun. And since I'm not getting course credit for this thread, I'm not going to chase definitions down the rabbit hole when I could be spending the time arguing the 1-2-1-2 diagonal rule.

It's not about whether or not I like it, it's simply about whether or not the answer is accurate. As noted, I have no interest in making you do anything, but I did feel I should set the record straight.

At the very least you seem to acknowledge that under different systems of interpretation regarding what ethics are and what civilization is, a different answer is possible. That's all anyone can ask for.

 

[Elf Witch]

Your objection is merely a matter of degree, then, is it not? The active anarchist views his or her priorities as important enough to impose on the world; the other simply doesn't think it worth the hassle of fighting for. Both can still be the same alignment.

It is a matter of degree a chaotic person could be an anarchist. There is more than one to play a chaotic. I am just tried of seeing chaotic played as the spoiled child rebeling against authority figures.


Maybe it is because I am way passed my teen years and thankfully my son turns 30 this year so his teen years are behind us. It just tens to annoy me.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

At the very least you seem to acknowledge that under different systems of interpretation regarding what ethics are and what civilization is, a different answer is possible. That's all anyone can ask for.

You mean when I said a page ago "But I understand that many have a radically different baseline so it's not something I take personally if someone thinks the idea is crazy." That was all you could have asked for?

 

[moritheil]

You mean when I said a page ago "But I understand that many have a radically different baseline so it's not something I take personally if someone thinks the idea is crazy." That was all you could have asked for?

Well, if you insist on arguing this . . .

There is a huge difference between whether or not you "take something personally" (i.e., it offends you) and whether or not you acknowledge it as a valid conceptual framework.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, if you insist on arguing this . . .

bit of projection there. Think we're done here.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Note: I haven't read through this thread so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

The Book of Exalted Deeds deals with this exact subject (Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption on page 28).