Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 1900703" data-attributes="member: 307">Yes it is, and that's not particularly relevant to the morality of summoning things to kill them. The temporary nature of the harm you have inflicted only mitigates the evil you do when you engage in such acts, it doesn't eliminate it. You are still intentionally inflicting pain and suffering and temporary death (they don't reform immediately).It is the nature of good to care about things like &quot;means&quot;, and what sort of use a particular power is put to. &quot;Good&quot; implies that the method by which a goal is accomplished is important, in many cases, as important as the end itself. There is no need to kill all of the mortals who know how to summon creatures, since the ones who don't abuse the power can do good with it.Even if it is temporary, killing things is evil. The permanence of the damage and harm is not a dispositive factor. Suppose the local lord of the manor, stockpiled with bread that will spoil overnight, refuses to distribute this soon to be worthless povender before it goes bad saying &quot;who cares if the peasants are hungry and have no food, they can eat something else tomorrow&quot;. Does the fact that the peasant's suffering is presumably temporary eliminate the callus nature of their treatment?Why not? Soldiers are sent into battle all the time for &quot;good&quot; causes, and that isn't seen as evil. Suppose that instead, we killed soldiers out of hand because it increased our convenience factor, do you see this as &quot;not-evil&quot;? The distinction between good and evil in many ways hinged on seeing the difference there, a difference you clearly just want to gloss over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 1900703, member: 307"] Yes it is, and that's not particularly relevant to the morality of summoning things to kill them. The temporary nature of the harm you have inflicted only mitigates the evil you do when you engage in such acts, it doesn't eliminate it. You are still intentionally inflicting pain and suffering and temporary death (they don't reform immediately). It is the nature of good to care about things like "means", and what sort of use a particular power is put to. "Good" implies that the method by which a goal is accomplished is important, in many cases, as important as the end itself. There is no need to kill all of the mortals who know how to summon creatures, since the ones who [i]don't[/i] abuse the power can do good with it. Even if it is temporary, killing things is evil. The permanence of the damage and harm is not a dispositive factor. Suppose the local lord of the manor, stockpiled with bread that will spoil overnight, refuses to distribute this soon to be worthless povender before it goes bad saying "who cares if the peasants are hungry and have no food, they can eat something else tomorrow". Does the fact that the peasant's suffering is presumably temporary eliminate the callus nature of their treatment? Why not? Soldiers are sent into battle all the time for "good" causes, and that isn't seen as evil. Suppose that instead, we killed soldiers out of hand because it increased our convenience factor, do you see this as "not-evil"? The distinction between good and evil in many ways hinged on seeing the difference there, a difference you clearly just want to gloss over. [/QUOTE]

Verification