No I think we're both morally just. I think you're just exaggerating for effect on the Internet for the purposes of a debate and know darn well burning someone alive is the morally worse choice.
You've accused me of psychopathy multiple times by this point. Also, don't put words in my mouth. Morality is incredibly complex and I have not taken the stance you are clinging to. In fact, I have REPEATEDLY tried to understand why we need some sort of "this is more evil than this" measure when no one other than you has tried to rank these things on a moral scale.
The scenario was using a spell to make them forget they saw you and turn back - rather than fireball them to death. That's saving their lives with the spell.
You could also run away. You don't need to kill someone just because they saw you. You've created a dichotomy that doesn't need to exist "I have only two choices, murdering you, or warping your mind and erasing your memories, there is no other choice" is false. You have other choices. So much of morality is context based, why isn't it more moral to risk letting the janitor see you and run away rather than defaulting to murder or mind-warping?
No not correct and good, where is that weird absolute coming from? It's not as evil to rob someone and not harm them, than it is to rob someone and also murder them. This is not a difficult ethical choice here.
In all circumstances, no matter what? Again, you aren't accounting for a vast array of possibilities, and various other types of harm. What if your theft leads to them being a homeless drug addict, suffering day in and day out? Have you truly done a lesser evil?
You keep acting like "well, clearly there is only one correct and obvious answer" when, again, if it was that simple, this wouldn't be a set of questions humanity has grappled with for thousands of years.
I doubt the bank teller thinks whether they are murdered or not is splitting hairs. It's absurd to say the difference between the person living or dying is inconsequential hair splitting. Again, if I didn't think you were doing this for the purposes of an argument on the internet, someone who actually seemed to believe that was a hair splitting scenario would, yeah, be having difficulty understanding the difference between right and wrong. But I feel pretty confident you know the difference and are just playing games here with this argument.
But this isn't from the perspective of the bank teller. This is from the perspective of the robber, who is committing an immoral act either way. Saying "this type of immoral act is slightly less immoral" IS kind of splitting hairs. It seems to be with the intention of allowing certain immoral acts to pass as "fine" because they are less evil than other immoral acts.
Who said or implied "the high point of morality." That's not just an ordinary strawman it's a giant Godzilla sized strawman. That's a pretty disingenuous take on this. If you don't want to have the discussion and just figured I'd walk away if you behaved that way, maybe try just saying you're done with the conversation rather than resort to that?
Well the rest of friggen humanity does in fact see meaningful differences between theft and murder, for instance. Things are not generally either "good" or "bad." They usually are somewhere on a line with one end of the line being the worst possible bad and the other end being the best possible good. Speeding 10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway is bad, but not very far down the line toward bad. Stealing a can of soda from a store is closer to the bad end than the good end than the speeding example. Murder is well further down that line towards the bad end than the good end, than stealing. And while not all morality is universal, THAT morality is pretty darn universal in all nations. Every non-psychopathic person understands murder is a worse bad than stealing a can of soda, as a generalization.
And what is the general stance on the morality of removing a person's freedom of choice? Of enslaving them for example? Is that generally high on the list or low on the list?
Well... depends where and when you ask, doesn't it? And, again, again, and again, you are creating a dichotomy. "I can kill you, or warp your mind to my will." like there is no other possible option you could possibly take.
Yeah that's no sense of pride in that. Any child could answer that level of morality question just as easily.
Ah yes, children. Classically the most morally sound of individuals. Pay no mind to children who savagely beat other children because they touched a toy that didn't belong to them. We all know children are moral paragons!
It's why I never used the term "killing" but instead used the term "murder."
Because there is a doubtful difference in perception because we can justify "killing" a human being but "murder" is different? Like somehow both don't end up with a human being dead.
It was a D&D example. Mind controlled the NPCs coming our way to forget they saw the party and turned the other way, rather than having to fireball them. I am pretty sure you understand the context of the example when first presented.
So, a DnD example. That means you broke into someone else's home, to steal something that doesn't belong to them, and you decided to be the morally correct person by mind controlling them so they can't protect their property instead of murdering them in their own home and taking it anyways? And those are your only options for moral choice?
People lose their life savings fairly often. In fact, a huge number of people have no life savings to steal. While some few might commit suicide over it, the overwhelming majority don't think it's the same as the end of their life. Because you have hope of recovery after a loss like that. Most people would answer pretty easily that murdering them is well worse than stealing their life savings. Why don't you ask some of your friends what they think of that question?
Well, since we are talking about DnD examples, isn't having an eternity of bliss in a plane of pure good, where nothing bad can happen to you, quite a degree better than struggling and suffering and grinding away years of your life on a small chance of recovery? Does that change the equation at all? Or does a DnD example no longer apply because it is inconvenient to your point?
I didn't say laws ARE morality. I said the basis of the laws are drawn from moral philosophy.
But you know what? You knew that. You were quoting it, you saw it right there, and you again created an absurd strawman Which makes this conversation useless.
What if I argued the basis of laws is to protect property and keep the powerful in power? Is that truly so absurd? Clearly not as many philosophers and social thinkers have argued exactly that. Again, if laws were drawn from morality, then wouldn't we have laws mandating that we care for the sick and unhoused? Wouldn't we have laws that are compassionate?
It's well along that line towards bad, but not as far along the line as murder. Again, no matter how dramatic you make the example, the overwhelming majority of people prefer not being murdered to that scenario.
A majority? Maybe. But studies (
Mental Health Impact of Rape) have shown that suicidal thoughts among rape victims are 33% compared to the 8% average. That is a third, who may very well disagree with you. Especially when their own body is literally turned against them.
Seriously, stop trying to downplay this. If Murder was the absolute worst thing that could happen to someone, we could not have a conception of "A Fate worse than Death" and that's a whole trope-page by itself. And most of these fates, or a common way to portray them, involve being trapped in your own body, and incapable of acting, the exact state that can be created by enchantment.
Again, I am not calling you a psychopath. I am however saying you are exaggerating for effect during an internet debate and know darn well murder is worse than the basic scenarios I mentioned.
Right, you've moved on from calling me a psychopath at every opportunity to simply saying that I can't possibly hold any of my own opinions, because you opinions are obviously and objectively correct.
You know, I know, everyone still reading this knows I never said or implied it was the "good morally right thing." I have always been, and continue to, say that both are bad but one is worse than the other. YOU knew that, because you said earlier you didn't see the point of making distinctions between two bad things. So you fully understand I was also saying it was bad just one was worse than the other. And yet repeatedly you've pretended I said one was morally good and right. It's rude. Why do you keep tossing that in there for the cheap shot at me when you know I never made such an argument?
Because you keep trying to rank them. You can't seem to accept that my initial contribution to this entire conversation was "Mind control isn't good" and "Evocation isn't mind control" and have since repeatedly harassed and spoken down to me about your understanding of morality, and how everyone agrees with you. I didn't see a point in comparing one evil thing to another evil thing, but you kept insisting that one was less evil, one was better, one was sparing lives that otherwise would have been lost. You've dragged me into this, insisting that every single person with a working brain must agree with your positions, which you felt the need to put on blast just because I dared to say that fireball doesn't mind control people.
You wanted the discussion. So here we are. Discussing it.
Now you're just outright lying about me. Damn, that is really rude.
Not a lie when everything you say seems to be followed "but the other option is to commit murder, and that's worse!"
