Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3255290" data-attributes="member: 22424">andOkay, allow me to rephrase.Consider the example of a runaway train that's on a track heading towards five workmen. There is a switch that will shift it onto another track where one man is working. Unfortunately, you're five miles away, so can't take action.Net result: Five men die, one lives.Now, consider exactly the same situation, except that you are standing right next to the switch but choose not to change the tracks.Net result: Five men die, one lives.The result of inaction is exactly the same as if you had not been there at all. Hence, the net effect of your actions (or, in this case, inaction) is 0. That is what I meant by saying that inaction has no consequence.Yes...No. The determining cause of the death is that the person was shot in the head. The determining cause of the person being shot in the head is that you pulled the trigger. You are, of course, responsible for your actions and the consequences thereof.By contrast, if you had not taken action, you would not have been responsible. However, I'm not aware of many people dying from not being shot in the head.Okay, then, another example: Applying Rule 0, it becomes acceptable for the robots to engage in outright murder of those who would endanger humanity. Better that one die rather than the whole be harmed, right?Except that out there we have scientists working on cold fusion. Once it is perfected, it is inevitable that someone will find a way to weaponise it. And, once it's turned into a weapon, it is inevitable that the weapon will be used by someone somewhere. Since we cannot un-invent something, the only way to stop this is to prevent the research, and the most logical way to do this is to eliminate the inventor.Who, of course, is both innocent and acting with benign intentions. So, in the name of preventing harm to humanity as a whole, it becomes acceptable to murder.True. And the 'classic' D&D adventurer - the guy who invades the lairs of humanoid races, puts them to the sword, and steals their treasure - should not be considered Good.However, most of the D&D campaigns I've seen tend to a more quest-based structure, with the PCs taking up arms against some imminent threat or dire Evil. And, of course, there is also a huge number of campaigns that don't consider alignment particularly closely.</blockquote>

Verification