Moral Inconsistency Question: the Echo (Spoilers within)

[Urthdigger]

I viewed it just as a massive invasion of privacy, something rather rude... but not really comparable to rape or something like that.

[Cyan]

I viewed it just as a massive invasion of privacy, something rather rude... but not really comparable to rape or something like that.

Just to kind of play the other side of this. . .

Couldn't you consider rape one of the biggest invasions of privacy? I mean, most people see it as an act of violence and power, but you could also look at it as a violation of..well yourself. I think I would certainly be violated in that scenario.

This is oretty interesting though. I would love to see the morality of using the Echo come up later on in the story in some aspect.

[Urthdigger]

Just to kind of play the other side of this. . .

Couldn't you consider rape one of the biggest invasions of privacy? I mean, most people see it as an act of violence and power, but you could also look at it as a violation of..well yourself. I think I would certainly be violated in that scenario.

This is oretty interesting though. I would love to see the morality of using the Echo come up later on in the story in some aspect.

Saying an invasion of privacy is akin to rape is like saying that hitting someone is akin to murder. Yes, rape is a grave invasion of privacy, but that doesn't mean that this invasion of privacy, using the echo, is as heinous as rape. I view it more along the lines of wiretapping someone's phone or going through their mail: Disrespectful and most certainly illegal, but not something that would utterly traumatize someone like rape does.

[Fensfield]

Saying an invasion of privacy is akin to rape is like saying that hitting someone is akin to murder. Yes, rape is a grave invasion of privacy, but that doesn't mean that this invasion of privacy, using the echo, is as heinous as rape. I view it more along the lines of wiretapping someone's phone or going through their mail: Disrespectful and most certainly illegal, but not something that would utterly traumatize someone like rape does.

You force your way into someone's brain (soul even, if the descriptions are to be believed) and impose yourself on their memories. You aren't just watching their memories; using the Echo puts you in that memory in order for you to experience it, and thus changes the memory invaded to fit the actions of the character using the Echo. Even just as an observer, the memory is still changed if the Echo'd person sees or hears you - that's how some are able to tell it's being used on them; they remember noticing the Echo'er at the time and, if they know about the Echo, make the logical jump needed to guess what's going on.

Obviously I'm not equating all instances of using the Echo to rape, even without a person's explicit consent. There would be degrees of severity dependent on whether the user was as discrete as possible, whether it was used with malevolent intent, or indeed whether their actions within the memory itself were malevolent.

The nature of the memory invaded would make a difference as well. Poor Raya-O' for instance - our characters turned what must have been a memory of a potent (and likely rare, if suggestions about Kan-E's wandering habits are true) moment with her elder sister into a memory of discovering someone invading their privacy. I can't imagine a way that could ever be undone, and worse, she'll always know as well - of course she'd want the revenge she threatened. Even someone using the Echo to try and undo it would just change the memory further. Hell, thinking about it like that, even consenting uses of the Echo become a flicker uncomfortable and definitely require the user to be discrete, and delicate.

But all the same, forcing your way into someone's mind and imposing yourself on their memories is very arguably a violation, and a fair bit worse than poking through someone's mail. .. Though I do agree that one cannot argue that every invasion of privacy is akin to such a violation, obviously.