Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mardoc Redcloak" data-source="post: 3254039" data-attributes="member: 40569">That's what we've been arguing about. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Of course it has consequences.  The consequence is that whatever is going on is not altered.But in order to argue that we are not morally responsible for the consequences of inaction, you must argue that if we are not the determining cause of something, it isn't our fault (at least, that's been the usual argument.)  It follows from that line of reasoning that NOTHING but the action itself - the application of force to the weapon we are using - is our fault, since everything else is not determined by us, but rather by the circumstances and the law of nature.Why do you object to that?  Probably because you hold that freedom is more important than safety and prosperity.  I agree.  But this can be incorporated into the standard by which we judge the consequences of our actions.So, in this case, the action of enslaving humans has two relevant consequences:1. Humanity is safe and prosperous.2. Humanity is not free.If we value freedom over safety and prosperity, even a consequentialist standard would lead to the conclusion that the action is wrong.Even if the value is infinite (and I don't think that makes much sense), we can only conclude that we have no OBLIGATION to sacrifice the one for the five.  We still can do so if we wish to; we are merely exchanging things of equal moral value.Yes, and I agreed with you, and argued that that line of reasoning only helps my case.All we can do is try our best.But the alternative is no less subject to uncertainty.  Perhaps the one life you spare will become the next Hitler or Stalin.  We simply cannot avoid making a choice that involves uncertainty.Morally, we make decisions that involve uncertainty all the time.  To bring this back to D&D, sure, you might think the people your character kills are evil, but unless you have a paladin or cleric handy (and some guarantee against misleading spells), is it ever really certain?  By this line of logic, the only characters that should be considered "good" are the ones who take Vow of Non-Violence.</blockquote>

Verification