aefenglom | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Name: Entrapta
Date: oct 16th
Format: text

HELLO! I WANT TO COLLECT SOME DATA.

IF YOU HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT ETHICS, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1] ARE THERE ACTIONS YOU CONSIDER UNACCEPTABLE REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES

2] ARE THERE SOME MITIGATING CONTEXTS THAT RENDER OTHERWISE UNACCEPTABLE ACTIONS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES

3] IF A PERSON HAS PERFORMED AN UNACCEPTABLE ACTION, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT?

THANKS! 8)

Threaded | Flat

[what a loaded question!!!]

1) yes keeping someone trapped in a mirror for the better part of 6000 years
2)absolutely not
3)i just let steven decide since ive not been so great at that in the past

i don't know how you manage to make totally normal questions sound absolutely menacing all the time

All of this stuff sounds kind of complicated
I don't know if you can just fill this out in a form

Can I ask you reverse questions?

1) What do you mean by unacceptable? Do you just mean like... it's bad and you shouldn't do it? Or like that someone is a bad person for doing it?

2) Doesn't that kind of depend on the context of each specific unacceptable act that you're asking for the context of?

3) Can't they just like... punish themselves?

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU INTEND ON USING THIS DATA FOR?

1. some things like enslaving people and taking away their free will and destroying the world

2. i guess i can sympathize with someone doing something bad depending on the context or if theyre sorry

like if they hurt someone from lashing out because they were hurt or it was an accident

it doesnt make it acceptable but i wont be as mad about it because id hope they do better

3. i dont think one punishment works for every situation

even if its the same crime

or uh bad behavior

i think things like if theyre remorseful or will do it again or their reasons can change things

1. Only slavery.
2. Yes. Live and death.
3. Depends on the action and circumstances.

Edited 2019-10-26 01:05 (UTC)

These questions don't have enough pizzaz.

You say that these questions are being used to broaden your understanding of ethics. Is this poll of yours being conducted while you also investigate philosophical views, or is it more of a passing whim?

Dear Entrapta,

While it should be apparent that anyone with a sense of decorum and responsibility has a vested interest in Ethics, what is deemed to be within those boundaries is highly dependent upon the context in which this question is being asked. Without known context, it is difficult to determine how to proceed.

After all, while crimes like theft and murder are generally deemed unacceptable by society at large, the rules surrounding these matters are entirely different if they were to be committed at either a dinner party or on the battlefield. In general these are wrong, but in times of war Death is impersonal and looting can, at times, be a matter of survival.

However, to answer your question, I would have to say that any act committed to deny another sentient mind their rights as a living being in any respect is wholly unacceptable no matter the situation. The difference between a public gathering and the scene of a skirmish matters little in this regard. There are no mitigating circumstances for this either, as the way a slave is treated is wholly different from one who is voluntarily in the service of a household-- be it for domestic or martial reasons.

Punishment is a consequence for this is not something that I have considered. Rather, I would defer to those who make the study of law their life's work... and do my utmost to disengage with such a person however possible.

If merely disengaging is not enough, however, there are always other methods to discretely handle these matters.

Forgive my excess of words. This medium is unfamiliar to me. I know not the appropriate etiquette for communication in this matter.

Regards,

Lorenz Hellman Gloucester

Edited 2019-10-26 03:39 (UTC)

1) Not regardless of context, no. But, something like destroying humankind would be "unacceptable." Inflicting meaningless suffering, wanton killing. The thought's abhorrent.

2) In my first example? No -- nothing that renders it acceptable. Otherwise, it would be a matter of thinking long-term, balancing the scales in terms of what must be done versus what there is to gain.

3) Typically, per the laws of my Kingdom, it would be either a fine, prison, or execution.

[ the last answer isn't exactly his personal opinion, but hey. ]

WOW, THESE ARE DEEP QUESTIONS. FULL OF THOUGHTS OF TERRIBLE THINGS I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT!
BUT I DO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT ETHICS, SO HERE I AM.

1... UM. HMM... DESTROYING THE WORLD, I GUESS.
AND STEALING THINGS YOU DON'T NEED, LIKE A CERTAIN DOG WHO ALREADY HAS DOZENS OF MY BONES, YET INSISTED ON TAKING EVEN MORE!!
OR LEAVING YOUR DIRTY LAUNDRY OUT IN THE OPEN, ALL OVER THE PLACE, EVEN AFTER SOMEONE REMINDS YOU TO PUT IT AWAY.
THAT STUFF IS PRIVATE! AND GROSS! THERE'S NO NEED FOR THAT!!
...NORMALLY I WOULD SAY KILLING PEOPLE, ENSLAVING PEOPLE, AND MIND CONTROLLING PEOPLE ARE UNACCEPTABLE.
THEY'RE ALL VERY PRETTY TERRIBLE!
ERASING A PERSON... THAT HURTS THEM IN A WAY YOU CAN'T EASILY UNDO. ESPECIALLY KILLING PEOPLE! ONCE THEY'RE DEAD, THAT'S USUALLY IT.
BUT....

ANSWERING 2......
TRYING TO PROTECT PEOPLE BY KILLING SOMEONE...
IF NOTHING ELSE WORKS, OR THERE ISN'T ANY TIME... THAT'S A LITTLE ACCEPTABLE. A LITTLE MITIGATING.
IMPRISONING PEOPLE IN A MOUNTAIN SO THEY CAN'T STEAL YOUR SOUL SUCKS, A LOT. BUT IF IT'S DONE TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE, MAYBE IT'S ONLY MOSTLY TERRIBLE.
AND MAYBE MIND CONTROL, JUST TO STOP PEOPLE FROM KILLING OR DOING IRREPARABLE HARM, WOULD BE OKAY. IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT IT MIGHT BE TOO HARD TO USE THAT AND NOT JUST DO OTHER TERRIBLE HARMS?

3... SCOLDING THEM AND STOPPING THEM FROM DOING IT AGAIN?
I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT VERY INTERESTED IN PUNISHMENT! NOT WHEN REFORMING THEM IS AN OPTION.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS, AT THE END OF THE DAY, PEOPLE ARE BEING THE BEST THEY CAN BE.
AND NOT MURDERING OR ENSLAVING OR CONTROLLING ANYONE IF THEY CAN HELP IT.
AND IF THEY CAN'T HELP IT, THEN.... KEEPING THEM AWAY SO THEY CAN'T DO IT TO ANYONE IS LOADS BETTER THAN PUNISHING THEM.
LIKE A LENGTHY AND EFFECTIVE TIME OUT.

1) I'm not really lenient towards those who hurt others for their own selfish gain, whether they do it through a deliberate murder, injury, or betrayal.

2) Acting in self-defense, having to kill in order to protect someone else, or hurting them in order to protect them. Having good intentions doesn't necessarily make them a good person, but if their reasons are understandable on a moral standpoint I wouldn't hold the same level of judgement towards them. [ Not to mention he killed a lot of Fangire to protect humans, so he's also putting himself in this category... ]

3) It really depends on the context. If someone committed betrayal, for example, I would think their punishment should be something like a stained reputation and social isolation, certainly not some jail time like with worse crimes.

1. its never okay to abuse or enslave anyone
basically any time youre exerting your power over someone its not okay
taking over the world obviously isn't a good idea
2. not any of those big ones
but like tons of things that are legally wrong are totally justifiable
murdering someone in self defense or stealing food bc ur poor and capitalism is bunk
3. depends on the context obv
if u did anything in one life in prison or any situation where ur not gonna hurt anyone is best
killing them if theres really no other choice??? but that's more heat of the moment self defense

[Why yes, he's had lots of thoughts about what is morally right recently, why do you ask?]

1. murder!
2. maybe if you promise to do the murder in a non wasteful manner? like, if you kill someone, but promise to use every part of them as efficiently as possible!
3. they must apologize from the bottom of their heart!

Edited 2019-10-27 23:26 (UTC)

[Thinly amused,] While it's not unforgivable, using the yell setting on the watches has to be at least a small ethical transgression.

To your first question: Slavery, abuse, blood magic. Anything meant to deliberately degrade another's innocence or free will, [Dorchacht.] Controlling men's minds.

To the second question, I wouldn't see a situation where any of those are acceptable. There's mages back home who make the case blood magic might be necessary in self-defense--and here, I understand, it's treated as a typical practice, [he's doing a really good job of not sounding absolutely disgusted by that, good job, Myr.] But I'm not convinced it's worth the cost to your soul just to delay your death a space of time.

I think the others who've spoken have covered the range of things that might excuse murder, theft, lying, and so on--that whole gamut of evils we can justify in war or dire threat.

And as it concerns punishment--well, it ought to be matched to the crime and motive. And it should include some redress to the people harmed. A thief can restore what she stole; a murderer, if he's not executed, might serve the family of the one he's murdered. Lying's a harder one to punish, since trust's harder to put back when it's broken, which I s'pose, [and here his tone is ironic,] is why some places go for cutting out a liar's tongue. But that's both excessive and cruel.

1. Yes. It's unacceptable to kill people while aspiring to be a writer.
2. No.
3. Revenge.

1) No
2) No
3) Personally I just believe in solid revenge in whatever form I can get it in.

Threaded | Flat