*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Veloran]

I've been wondering why people are desperate to argue that the third sacrifice would have been sapient beings that were created to be thinking and feeling purely to be killed - when it flies in the face of the thematic meaning of the story, makes every character involved look like an idiot, and has not been mentioned once by a single character, ever. And the only conclusion I can see is that it's because it makes the Ancients look bad..

Presented without comment.

Yes, moral disagreements are common. That does not change however, the fact that there are right and wrong actions. Unless you believe all actions morally equal?

If we believe the narrative presentation about the non-existence of an extant meaning in life beyond what one chooses for themselves, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

There’s no indication that he ever was told the possibility of their disappearance. So let that be clear.

[EaraGrace]

Presented without comment.

I don’t believe they were created for that purpose. I don’t think they were “created” at all. Life existed before the Ancients began controlling the star, and I see no reason to believe that life didn’t spring up naturally afterward.

If we believe the narrative presentation about the non-existence of an extant meaning in life beyond what one chooses for themselves, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Existentialism has no bearing on moral realism. It’s not a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

And good point with that context! He did know that I’ll concede. I think however the context does undermine the point as well. A willing sacrifice was never the issue at play here, and this one seems quite willing.[/QUOTE]

1.) The lives the Ancients intended to sacrifice to Zodiark were not the lives the Ascians intended to sacrifice. This is an important distinction.
2.) This is only partly accurate.
3.) We learn in Elpis that some of the Ancients' creations gained souls and were in turn able to create more like them via standard reproduction. A lack of aetheric density can easily be made up for with sheer volume.
4.) Can't disagree here. That phrase got tossed around quite a bit, though life energies and souls are two different things. Zodiark quite clearly contains a multitude of actual souls, not just the aetheric energies of their owners. This is mere supposition on my part, but I figure this might explain why Zodiark's aether reserves don't seem capable of being fully depleted.
5.) From what we are lead to understand in Elpis, much of their world is not yet inhabited by their creations. It seems quite probable that they sacrificed themselves for lack of any other viable sacrifices, or perhaps because Zodiark simply had to be so overwhelmingly powerful to perform its intended function. One of the things they did when they had Zodiark restore the world's ability to sustain life was to have him create new life as well, which we are lead to believe stemmed from the Ancients' own creations.

1. Never stated
2. This is a collection of reasons so I’m ok with partial credit
3. The sheer amount of creations this would staggering. Our aether was a drop in the bucket for Emet, and we were similar to most other familiars and creations there.
4. N/A
5. The new life formed naturally from the repaired world, not necessarily created by them directly. And weakening Zodiark outright seems a poor plan given what we know would happen to his rewritten natural laws. This was why the enervation was used I believe.

If we believe the narrative presentation about the non-existence of an extant meaning in life beyond what one chooses for themselves, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

And I am saying we do not have enough information for me to have a firm opinion. I find Venat's actions morally objectionable for the reasons stated. Necessary as the other poster stated or not. they are still morally awful in my eyes. But I do not have enough information about what kind of lives would have comprised the third sacrifice nor whether those lives would have consented if they were sentient for me to take their side.

The word Venat is now banned from our back and forth. I’m asking once again if you think that the question of the moral consideration of a group of non-sapients would divide Amaurot society?

[redheadturk]

The word Venat is now banned from our back and forth. I’m asking once again if you think that the question of the moral consideration of a group of non-sapients would divide Amaurot society?

You are moving the goalposts, and I am no longer going to debate this with you. I made it clear what my issue was.

[KariTheFox]

You are moving the goalposts, and I am no longer going to debate this with you. I made it clear what my issue was.

They have asked you the same question three times and you haven't answered it. The goalposts are very firmly in the same place.

[redheadturk]

They have asked you the same question three times and you haven't answered it. The goalposts are very firmly in the same place.

Which had nothing to do with my original argument about my moral objections to Venat's actions.

[KariTheFox]

Which had nothing to do with my original argument about my moral objections to Venat's actions.

If you think about it, it has everything to do with it. If your concern is the consent of the people involved, then whether or not the targets of the third sacrifice were ensouled beings who could object to being sacrificed becomes very important. Which is why you are being asked if you think Amaurot society would be bitterly divided over the moral consideration of non-sapeint life.

The "Venat's actions are morally unjustifiable" argument has to rest on a central pillar of the third sacrifice being of non-sapient life. It is the difference between Venat being a raging enviromentalist extremist and her attempting to prevent her own people from committing genocide.

But before and after the sundering we are never shown any indiction Venat is overly concerned with the welfare of non-sapient animals over sapient life.

We are however, shown the ascians committing genocide several times, and planning to commit more. I do not think it is hard to figure out which interpretation was intended by the writers.

[Theodric]

They have asked you the same question three times and you haven't answered it. The goalposts are very firmly in the same place.

I would have thought it to be something that did not necessarily need to be pointed out though I think it is well worth noting that nobody is obligated to spend time and posts on circular back and forth rhetoric that amounts to little more than leading questions.

[Veloran]

I don’t believe they were created for that purpose. I don’t think they were “created” at all. Life existed before the Ancients began controlling the star, and I see no reason to believe that life didn’t spring up naturally afterward.

We have no idea what the ancient history of the star before the Ancients was like, if there even was one. But yes, the Ancients did restart the cycle of life which the Final Days had destroyed - And if they themselves didn't create any new lifeforms at this time to repopulate the world, why would the planet suddenly poof a bunch of sapient species out of nowhere, when before everyone was an Ancient?

Existentialism has no bearing on moral realism. It’s not a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Why? If the conclusion is that life only has meaning insofar as the one you prescribe, is it not the case that someone like Zenos, who tortures and destroys entire civilizations for his own amusement, is just as justified in his actions as anyone else? That's his given purpose in life.

A willing sacrifice was never the issue at play here, and this one seems quite willing.

When they revealed the plan to the rest of the Ironworks in the short story, most of them just abandoned the effort. Many individual people or small groups helped out with their cause over time, but 99% of the world had no interest in joining them, nevermind any races and species existing outside Etheirys itself. So no, it was not consensual, it was a tiny conclave of technicians undertaking a venture which they full well believed would erase their entire timeline.