Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lurina]

On the ongoing question here about whether it's acceptable to commit mass-murder if the stakes are life itself in the long-term, I want to - putting aside my earlier comments about my main objection being how it's questionable to write a story like in the first place, especially when said mass-murder is framed as due to some inherent racial characteristic - take a bit of a different tack to Crowny and challenge this idea at its root.

Why, exactly, does potential future life have any fundamental value at all, especially when compared to life that already exists in the here and now? To paraphrase Kant, man is not a means to an end, but an end unto himself; conscious beings do not exist to affirm the world, but are rather its purpose, for nothing has any value except that which is imparted by the perceptions of a conscious observer. Those who are not born are (obviously) not conscious, and so have no inherent value. Therefore, a choice that will result in the world ending in 100 generations as opposed to 100,000 is at worst ethically neutral so long as that ending is not any more unpleasant for the conscious beings that have to experience it, because the only "victims" are unborn, unconscious ones, and in both cases their number is infinite anyway. If we assume the number of unborn beings "saved" by extending the lifespan of the world is, say, a trillion, then the total casualties go from ∞ to ∞ -1 trillion.

...or in other words, still ∞.

And that's if we give the fundamental worth of life the benefit of the doubt, which despite Endwalker's attitude, many philosophers don't. If extending the lifespan of the world would come at the cost of it being much more unpleasant to live in, than arguably not doing so is more ethical because it reduces the level of suffering per conscious being over the course of their lives.

For the sake of argument, let's also set aside all speculation about the Amaurotines finding another solution to the Meteion problem given enough time, and all objections to the story's weird ideas about utopias, and take what Endwalker appears to be saying at face value: Without Venat doing the Sundering, the Unsundered would have carried on as normal for a while, sacrificing some life that may or may not have been sentient to Zodiark in the process, before at some point relatively far in the future either becoming consumed by ennui and committing suicide, or getting killed by the Final Days after the Unsundered Zodiark finally breaks down in the face of Meteion's assault.

Even with this in mind, Venat's action feels incredibly morally wrong to me. It is a choice to indiscriminately sacrifice every currently conscious person against their will (and creating a bunch of essentially new conscious beings in the process), not to protect anyone who actually exists, but purely for the sake of the unborn.

How is this justified? Going past all of my more straightforward problems with the expansion's themes, this aggressive pro-natalism, this idea that the continuation of life has some essential value unto itself beyond the welfare and happiness of those who currently exist, really alienated me. It's frustrating because the text doesn't really engage with the obvious utilitarian counterargument at all. It just asserts repeatedly that the continuation of life is undeniably worthwhile for its own sake and strawmans any opposition as basically a kind of super-depression; perpetuation of life matters more than quality of life, and no matter how much your life is materially awful, you should continue to live anyway because shut up just do it. (Off-topic, but EW left me with an extremely dire sense of how the SE writers could approach topics like assisted suicide or the right to die, though in fairness, it's pretty common for anti-depression stories to fumble in these areas.)

As any individual has the absolute right to contribute to human extinction by choosing not to reproduce, so to does a society have the right to choose the lives of those who are currently alive over potential future life, so long as they're not explicitly damning people to suffer through their actions more than the alternative - as we are by destroying the planet through climate change while continuing to create a huge amount of new humans who'll have to deal with the consequences. Separated from the issue of the sacrifices, I believe the Unsundered had this right, and felt strange about the story's portrayal of this attitude as unacceptable.

[thegreatonemal]

How is this justified? Going past all of my more straightforward problems with the expansion's themes, this aggressive pro-natalism, this idea that the continuation of life has some essential value unto itself beyond the welfare and happiness of those who currently exist, really alienated me. It's frustrating because the text doesn't really engage with the obvious utilitarian counterargument at all. It just asserts repeatedly that the continuation of life is undeniably worthwhile for its own sake and strawmans any opposition as basically a kind of super-depression; perpetuation of life matters more than quality of life, and no matter how much your life is materially awful, you should continue to live anyway because shut up just do it. (Off-topic, but EW left me with an extremely dire sense of how the SE writers could approach topics like assisted suicide or the right to die, though in fairness, it's pretty common for anti-depression stories to fumble in these areas.)

Because for a group of people whose entire culture revolved around the betterment of the star and large numbers of that same group gave their lives in an attempt to save said star. You'd think they would be willing to do anything to ensure the star survived, even if they did not. But instead they chose to, just forget and try to go back to what they had. Venat was putting the wellbeing of the star above what most of her people wanted at the time.

[Lurina]

Because for a group of people whose entire culture revolved around the betterment of the star and large numbers of that same group gave their lives in an attempt to save said star. You'd think they would be willing to do anything to ensure the star survived, even if they did not. But instead they chose to, just forget and try to go back to what they had. Venat was putting the wellbeing of the star above what most of her people wanted at the time.

You ignored the point I was trying to make to answer a rhetorical question out of context.

Still, I'll reiterate. The 'star' has no independent value because it is not conscious. Living people are the only things with self-justifying worth, as only conscious beings can impart value through experience and observation; without anyone to give a crap about it, the universe and even life itself is just matter doing varyingly complicated stuff.

[MikkoAkure]

They refer to themselves as "Mankind" many times in Elpis.
That is pretty clearly the general name for the people as a whole.

The term "man" is used in our own day in-game as a general name for the people of Hydaelyn as a whole too.

The poster I quoted seemed to be under the impression that "Amaurotine" wasn't a term that existed when it very clearly does and is used. The people of the ancient times with the powers of creation seem to all be centered around Amaurot. They themselves refer to their people as "Amaurotine". The people in Elpis all have the same clothing and are under the Convocation's jurisdiction so it may be assumed that it's the same deal and Elpis is an integral part of Amaurotine culture and society.

What we don't quite know for sure is how the rest of the ancient world is like outside the city of Amaurot and if they're all the same. It may be inferred through Venat and Azem's travels and snippets about helping people around the world that outside of the main cultural center of Amaurot, people may at least be living differently and have different ideas than the city-folk. We know at least that there are actual farmers living in villages, but we don't know if they're also philosophical god-beings or if they are just mundane farmers.

"Amaurotine" describing a specific group of people beyond just their culture or place of origin isn't without precedence either since the race of people with a third eye and inability to control aether are called Garleans and their city is called Garlemald.

Regardless, it's a term used in-game so I don't know why people would have a problem with it.

Still, I'll reiterate. The 'star' has no independent value because it is not conscious. Living people are the only things with self-justifying worth, as only conscious beings can impart value through experience and observation; without anyone to give a crap about it, the universe and even life itself is just matter doing varyingly complicated stuff.

In Elpis, the Ancients specifically describe their society as being for the betterment of the star, so they themselves put value into it whether or not it is conscious.

It may very well be that the qualifications of "who or what is worth living" was where Venat's crew and Emet-Selch's crews' opinions diverged. Venat traversed the world much more than Emet-Selch did, after all. I hope we get a Tales from the Dawn to explain this more.

[Brinne]

In Elpis, the Ancients specifically describe their society as being for the betterment of the star, so they themselves put value into it whether or not it is conscious.

There are things that I, myself, put value in - animal welfare, for instance - that becomes compromised when a situation arises that means those values and other values clash, such as "aversion to human cost and suffering [distinguished, subjectively, on my part, from human convenience.]" I know some people in the case of the Ancients like to jump on that as "see, they're hypocrites and betrayed their own values [and thus they can't complain at being annihilated by Venat]" but it's a natural part of being human and existing in the world, and negotiating with tragedy and complex situations. Ordinarily, I think most people would sympathize with an animal rights activist, or an environmentalist, making the choice to give up on a group of animals if it meant saving a group of humans without accusing them of hypocrisy - unless there's already a pre-established investment or material/emotional benefit in interpreting their choices in a universally negative way.

There is legitimately nothing the Ancients did wrong that we ourselves, as a human society, (correlated with the societies of the Sundered) are not also guilty of. This is much of the core of why the in-narrative and fandom arguments that it's acceptable and good that they were wiped out on the basis of their collective societal "sins" is rather mind-boggling at best - and that's without getting into posturing about how we're somehow "better" or "more resilient" or "not a Dead End" compared to them when the only reason we survived was due to massive amounts of intervention and direct assistance on their part.

[Theodric]

There are things that I, myself, put value in - animal welfare, for instance - that becomes compromised when a situation arises that means those values and other values clash, such as "aversion to human cost and suffering [distinguished, subjectively, on my part, from human convenience.]" I know some people in the case of the Ancients like to jump on that as "see, they're hypocrites and betrayed their own values [and thus they can't complain at being annihilated by Venat]" but it's a natural part of being human and existing in the world, and negotiating with tragedy and complex situations. Ordinarily, I think most people would sympathize with an animal rights activist, or an environmentalist, making the choice to give up on a group of animals if it meant saving a group of humans without accusing them of hypocrisy - unless there's already a pre-established investment or material/emotional benefit in interpreting their choices in a universally negative way.

There is legitimately nothing the Ancients did wrong that we ourselves, as a human society, (correlated with the societies of the Sundered) are not also guilty of. This is much of the core of why the in-narrative and fandom arguments that it's acceptable and good that they were wiped out on the basis of their collective societal "sins" is rather mind-boggling at best - and that's without getting into posturing about how we're somehow "better" or "more resilient" or "not a Dead End" compared to them when the only reason we survived was due to massive amounts of intervention and direct assistance on their part.

Yeah, it's grim business but that's exactly why pest control exists. Even the animal lovers amongst us don't necessarily want to live in squalor letting rats, ants and spiders invade our homes.

It's also bizarre to try and claim that the Ancients deserved to be wiped out on the basis of engaging in such practices when the majority of side quests in the Sundered world involve sending adventurers to go and cull monsters and animals alike for encroaching on inhabited territory. As always, though, protagonist centred morality comes into play and absolutely everything is suddenly acceptable when 'we' do it.

[Lurina]

In Elpis, the Ancients specifically describe their society as being for the betterment of the star, so they themselves put value into it whether or not it is conscious.

People are not in thrall to their stated values. If I say that I love my cactus and then decide to throw it out to make room for a new chair, I haven't betrayed it, because the cactus is an unthinking object; it's only value came from my professed love in the first place. Circumstances changed and made the Ancients value the preservation of their loved ones over the star, and from a utilitarian perspective, this is fine so long as this act didn't directly engender future suffering. Considering we now know that the original sacrifices were conscious and trapped within Zodiark, it's arguably even the more moral action, EW's anti-escapism message aside.

Now, if I were talking about, say, throwing out an intelligent pet like a cat instead, this would become a bit more of an ambiguous situation. In turn, so is the Amaurot scenario itself complicated by the ambiguity of the third sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Sundering ended up de-facto obliterating all currently-extant sapient beings regardless, so in no regard can it be viewed as a lesser evil. It is - again, from a strictly utilitarian perspective - an objectively unethical act.

Though it's obvious EW isn't utilitarian and does hold convictions about the inherent worth of life for its own sake, rather than measuring its worth on the happiness and well-being it brings to conscious intelligence. Convictions which, to be clear, I think are dumb and barely challenged within the text despite being delivered pretty sanctimoniously.

The whole world could be "Amaurotine" just like how in our own ancient times, a large chunk of the world was Roman, centered around the city of Rome. My point is, is that the term "Amaurotine" exists in the game and is a term used to describe a people. We just simply don't know what exists outside of Amaurot and its satellite institutions such as Elpis. I'm not saying that there's a downtrodden underclass here. I'm just pointing out terminology being used in the game.

We do know there were nations independent of Amaurot because there was a whole quest (Debate and Discourse) about whether Amaurot should intervene in the Final Days affecting them or not. Though, you're right that we don't learn anything about them.

[EaraGrace]

People are not in thrall to their stated values. If I say that I love my cactus and then decide to throw it out to make room for a new chair, I haven't betrayed it, because the cactus is an unthinking object; it's only value came from my professed love in the first place. Circumstances changed and made the Ancients value the preservation of their loved ones over the star, and from a utilitarian perspective, this is fine so long as this act didn't directly engender future suffering. Considering we now know that the original sacrifices were conscious and trapped within Zodiark, it's arguably even the more moral action, EW's anti-escapism message aside.

Now, if I were talking about, say, throwing out an intelligent pet like a cat instead, this would become a bit more of an ambiguous situation. In turn, so is the Amaurot scenario itself complicated by the ambiguity of the third sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Sundering ended up de-facto obliterating all currently-extant sapient beings regardless, so in no regard can it be viewed as a lesser evil. It is - again, from a strictly utilitarian perspective - an objectively unethical act.

And yet a utilitarian perspective isn’t the only ethical view we can apply here, nor do all flavors of utilitarianism agree. If one is a positive forms of utilitarianism for example, then the preservation of life and its spread through existence would be a wholly good thing outweighing the moral negative of the Sundering.

Personally however, I find the Rawlsian just savings principle to be much more compelling. One can’t meet the sufficient threshold for a basic system of justice if everyone’s dead after all.

[SilverArrow20XX]

The term "man" is used in our own day in-game as a general name for the people of Hydaelyn as a whole too.

The poster I quoted seemed to be under the impression that "Amaurotine" wasn't a term that existed when it very clearly does and is used. The people of the ancient times with the powers of creation seem to all be centered around Amaurot. They themselves refer to their people as "Amaurotine". The people in Elpis all have the same clothing and are under the Convocation's jurisdiction so it may be assumed that it's the same deal and Elpis is an integral part of Amaurotine culture and society.

What we don't quite know for sure is how the rest of the ancient world is like outside the city of Amaurot and if they're all the same. It may be inferred through Venat and Azem's travels and snippets about helping people around the world that outside of the main cultural center of Amaurot, people may at least be living differently and have different ideas than the city-folk. We know at least that there are actual farmers living in villages, but we don't know if they're also philosophical god-beings or if they are just mundane farmers.

"Amaurotine" describing a specific group of people beyond just their culture or place of origin isn't without precedence either since the race of people with a third eye and inability to control aether are called Garleans and their city is called Garlemald.

Regardless, it's a term used in-game so I don't know why people would have a problem with it.

It's used in-game, in Amaurot, to describe people living in Amaurot.
I don't recall the term being used in Elpis other than when specifically referring to the city either.
I don't see any evidence that it's a term like "Garleans" which refers to both the race, and the citizens. It's more like "Ul'dahns".
Furthermore, while "Man" is used to describe the races of Hydaelyn as a whole, I don't recall the term "Mankind" ever being used before Elpis. I'm curious what word was used in other languages.