What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[linayar]

The collateral damage is what's important in this case. I only brought up the idea of excessive force in referencing concept of unwarranted defense generally.

We don't know what the collateral damage, if any, is. And collateral means they are unintended, so it has nothing to do with the morality of the perpetrator

Though if you wanted to be picky about it, it's bizarre and excessive in retrospect that Hydaelyn sundered the world into 14 parts instead of just, like, 2, presumably causing far greater damage to the selfhood of the people currently living on the planet as a result. We beat Meteion while 9/14 rejoined, so that would have been fine.

I wasn't aware Hydaelyn planned for there to be a specific amount of parts. Where did you find this information?

[Lurina]

We don't know what the collateral damage, if any, is. And collateral means they are unintended, so it has nothing to do with the morality of the perpetrator

We know that the Sundering affected every living creature on the planet, regardless of whether they Ancients involved in the sacrifices, unrelated Ancients, or other creatures both sentient and otherwise, so there is implicit collateral damage.

And of course it does. If you perform an action knowing there will be collateral damage, or with recklessness in a manner that causes it, then you are morally responsible for the results. If see someone about to detonate a bomb on the other side of a crowded building, and the only way to stop them is to shoot through that crowd, you've still killed everyone hit by those stray bullets, regardless of your intent.

I wasn't aware Hydaelyn planned for there to be a specific amount of parts. Where did you find this information?

I didn't. Like I said, that's something you can pick at if you have a mind to, but it wasn't my original point.

[linayar]

We know that the Sundering affected every living creature on the planet, regardless of whether they Ancients involved in the sacrifices, unrelated Ancients, or other creatures both sentient and otherwise, so there is implicit collateral damage.

What we don't know is how it affected them. We do know that the Ancients planned on killing people.

And of course it does. If you perform an action knowing there will be collateral damage, or with recklessness in a manner that causes it, then you are morally responsible for the results. If see someone about to detonate a bomb on the other side of a crowded building, and the only way to stop them is to shoot through that crowd, you've still killed and are morally responsible for what happens to whoever is hit by those stray bullets, regardless of your intent.

Intent matters. Someone who intentionally commits a murder is morally worse than someone who commits a murder unintentionally.

I didn't. Like I said, that's something you can pick at if you have a mind to, but it wasn't my original point.

If there is no excessive and unnecessary force, then there is no need to argue about collateral damage. Venat did what she thought she had to do to stop the others from making that final sacrifice.

[Lurina]

If there is no excessive and unnecessary force, then there is no need to argue about collateral damage. Venat did what she thought she had to do to stop the others from making that final sacrifice.

Collateral damage makes an action morally complicated, regardless of the intent and presumed necessity of the action. Someone who is willing to shoot into that crowd to stop a worse tragedy is not a hero, even if they believe their intent to be heroic, because they have still brought pain and death to the innocent themselves. Whether or not it's even permissible is the controversy inherent to the trolley problem, which you're almost certainly familiar with if you've spent any time online.

We've circled in such a manner that the only way I can think to respond is my looping back my original opinion.

Personally, I will find a "necessary evil" on that kind of scale being framed as heroic in the way it was kinda creepy and offputting no matter what. Doing a bad thing to prevent a worse thing don't make you a morally better person, just a more pragmatic one.

[linayar]

Collateral damage makes an action morally complicated, regardless of the intent and presumed necessity of the action. Someone who is willing to shoot into that crowd to stop a worse tragedy is not a hero, even if they believe their intent to be heroic, because they have still brought pain and death to the innocent themselves.

We've circled in such a manner that the only way I can think to respond is my looping back my original opinion.

It's not morally complicated because you don't need to be morally perfect to be a hero.

[KizuyaKatogami]

What we don't know is how it affected them. We do know that the Ancients planned on killing people.

Intent matters. Someone who intentionally commits a murder is morally worse than someone who commits a murder unintentionally.

If there is no excessive and unnecessary force, then there is no need to argue about collateral damage. Venat did what she thought she had to do to stop the others from making that final sacrifice.

We can infer based on the shb shorty story that illness was a foreign concept to them, however we know illness exists in the sundered world, along with a lot of the aging down process. So we know illness and the short lifespans can be equated to the sundering which puts a lot of blood on Venat’s hands, more than the sacrifices ever would have caused if we count all the shards.

[linayar]

We can infer based on the shb shorty story that illness was a foreign concept to them, however we know illness exists in the sundered world, along with a lot of the aging down process. So we know illness and the short lifespans can be equated to the sundering which puts a lot of blood on Venat’s hands, more than the sacrifices ever would have caused if we count all the shards.

So you're saying it's better to not have existed in the first place than to exist in a less than ideal form.

I can see the logic in that, but I don't personally agree with it. My life, however bad it may be, is my life.