Tales from the Dawn

[Veloran]

With all due respect, I’m going to say we should drop this direction for the topic right now. It is unhelpful and given the current real life connections it does nothing but raise the conversations temperature. Lets not do this.

It's true, and you know it's true. You yourself have stated that you think the potentiality of life is worth sacrificing lives, even innocent lives, for. Don't get squeamish just because it's uncomfortable. Again this isn't an indictment (on the topic I broached in specific anyway), I'd just like people to be more thoughtful and, preferably, consistent with the ideas they're talking about here.

The central conceit of the Ancients is that they were special. They were not.

[EaraGrace]

It's true, and you know it's true. You yourself have stated that you think the potentiality of life is worth sacrificing lives, even innocent lives, for. Don't get squeamish just because it's uncomfortable. Again this isn't an indictment (on the topic I broached in specific anyway), I'd just like people to be more thoughtful and, preferably, consistent with the ideas they're talking about here.

Alright fine let’s have this convo. To you, believing that you can be justified in reducing the well-being of those around today, in order to protect the potential for any life of any kind to continue on, is equivalent to forcing a mother to die in childbirth rather than have abortion. Let me just offer two of the reasons I disagree.

First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation. One can hold the latter of these and not the former.

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity. A climate activist doesn’t haven’t to be pro-life in order to believe that taking drastic action against climate change is justified, despite the fact that such actions would have a demonstrable impact on industries and economic activities relied upon by numerous communities worldwide. Just look at former mining and industrial towns that rot away along with those left there, leading to substance abuse, mental health problems, worse health outcomes, and yes death. And for whose benefit? The next generation and those further on. Look at developing nations who often resort to cheaper and more environmentally damaging practices in order to try to improve living standards. Do you have to be pro life to think it may be necessary to adopt policies that lead to higher costs and less opportunity for those who want nothing more than a better life?

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.

[Veloran]

First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation.

I don't really see how you can hold the value in the general and not the specific. The general view is nothing but an infinite set of specific cases, but when it comes to the specific case, suddenly the imperative shifts?

I recognize this may sound odd, but for what reason is the idea of the potential of life somehow more important than the actual potential of an actual life? The existence of a single life is as unique and special to the universe as the existence of life itself. Is it just a utilitarian numbers game? If so, surely the math in both cases adds up the same - There is more potential life in the universe than the potential life of the Ancients, and there is more potential life in a child than the remaining life of a mother. Does the scale, the gulf of the difference, just feel more appropriate for you to make that choice?

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity.

Following this, you outline scenarios where suffering is forcibly incurred in order to bear the burden of propagating life. So yes, a person certainly doesn't need to be pro-life in order to believe that drastic action inducing suffering and burden for the purposes of protecting life - But in the same way, I fail to see how this is actually a logically or morally consistent position. You may say it's a pragmatic position in certain regards, but that doesn't make it morally sound.

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.

Frankly, yes. Again, the general is just a set of the specific. To force someone to effectively be a human shield to allow life to continue but not do the same in the case of a birth is completely inconsistent. Why should the obligation, forced, to give up one's life for another be incurred differentially? I assume that in asking the question you already have your own response for the comparison, so what do you think?

[EaraGrace]

Doesn't this sound familiar? Oh, right it's Venat. It's Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three of course as well, but let's not do us all an intellectual disservice and count her out. I don't even honestly see why this line of inquiry is even relevant, personally. You're just proving his point by entertaining it, when you openly support someone who's ended as many lives however virtual as she has. You've openly stated if she was real you'd help her kill them all.

shrugs

Yes that does sound very close to Venats situation, that’s the whole point.

I don't really see how you can hold the value in the general and not the specific. The general view is nothing but an infinite set of specific cases, but when it comes to the specific case, suddenly the imperative shifts?

No you’ve misunderstood. The general view is distinct and one can in fact further the aims of the general view by violating the individual. We do this with deer all the time, culling the population in order to protect the ability of the species in general from collapsing due to overeating. The potential for life oftentimes runs counter to the protection of individual life, which wouldn’t work if they just collapse into each other no?

I recognize this may sound odd, but for what reason is the idea of the potential of life somehow more important than the actual potential of an actual life? The existence of a single life is as unique and special to the universe as the existence of life itself. Is it just a utilitarian numbers game? If so, surely the math in both cases adds up the same - There is more potential life in the universe than the potential life of the Ancients, and there is more potential life in a child than the remaining life of a mother. Does the scale, the gulf of the difference, just feel more appropriate for you to make that choice?

It is very much not a utilitarian numbers game, as shown by the very core of the thing we are arguing against. Let me once again use an example. Imagine grizzled bears are endangered and our protagonist holds that they should be protected and their species maintained. Now this selfsame person finds themself in a situation, not at all their fault, where they are about to be mauled by a grizzly. Killing the grizzly won’t permanently damn the population but it would kill that individual life. I can’t assume either that my killing will somehow lead to more life as that is outside of my control, all I can say is I’m reducing the number of lives by one. By your thinking, if the person holds that the potential for grizzly’s at all to exist is worthy of protecting, then because that is just an “infinite set of specific cases” they shouldn’t kill the grizzly and thus would die? Does that seem logical and true to you?

Following this, you outline scenarios where suffering is forcibly incurred in order to bear the burden of propagating life. So yes, a person certainly doesn't need to be pro-life in order to believe that drastic action inducing suffering and burden for the purposes of protecting life - But in the same way, I fail to see how this is actually a logically or morally consistent position. You may say it's a pragmatic position in certain regards, but that doesn't make it morally sound.

It all leads back to valuing the potential for life in general to exist vs the potential for specific life to exist. In inter generational ethics there’s the concept of a threshold, a point that current generations must reach in order to be just to those not yet born. The threshold would not require banning abortions if I believe it important to maintain the potential for life, as the potential for life is needed for a basic just society, whereas forcing a pregnant parent to die for their child is very much not.

Frankly, yes. Again, the general is just a set of the specific. To force someone to effectively be a human shield to allow life to continue but not do the same in the case of a birth is completely inconsistent.

You say this but haven’t justified it. Why are they the same? The examples I posted I think show a distinction between the two. How would you reconcile that if they are, as you say, the same?

Why should the obligation, forced, to give up one's life for another be incurred differentially? I assume that in asking the question you already have your own response for the comparison, so what do you think?

Because of the reasons for it! A person forced to die for an evil cause is an evil act is evil. A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible. Do you think conscription by the Allies in WW2 was an evil act?

[Veloran]

The general view is distinct and one can in fact further the aims of the general view by violating the individual. We do this with deer all the time, culling the population in order to protect the ability of the species in general from collapsing due to overeating. The potential for life oftentimes runs counter to the protection of individual life, which wouldn’t work if they just collapse into each other no?

Interesting argumentation, given you've just assumed a position that justifies everything the Ancients were doing on Elpis and their entire plan to sacrifice lives, something you've been so critical of in the past.

But really, "we have to pragmatically violate our supposed ideals for the greater good"? You must know how completely faulty and self-defeating that is, it's logic that renders the original view and intent morally destitute and worthless.

Does that seem logical and true to you?

If they were actually acting in accordance with their ideals, yes that is precisely what they would do. But remember, we're talking about a level of values import where someone actually does believe that the bear's life is worth more than a human life and should be protected over a human life, not a case where it's just some half-hearted idea. That itself would still be hypocrisy, but we're talking about an absolutist position where one is willing to weigh the lives of other people and trade them in reality, not just some layman notion. And to be clear, I'm not saying it's morally wrong for that person to defend their own life. I'd just like some honesty about it.

You also sidestepped my first point in that response. Why exactly is an individual life of less uniqueness and import than the idea of all life?

It all leads back to valuing the potential for life in general to exist vs the potential for specific life to exist. In inter generational ethics there’s the concept of a threshold, a point that current generations must reach in order to be just to those not yet born. The threshold would not require banning abortions if I believe it important to maintain the potential for life, as the potential for life is needed for a basic just society, whereas forcing a pregnant parent to die for their child is very much not.

A society where a conscripted soldier is forced to die for a child but a parent can leave their child to die doesn't sound very just at all to me, even if we just table the pregnancy part of it. It sounds to me like the ideals you're talking about are the exact foundations of an unjust society, a system where nebulous concepts are given priority over individuals, where the lives of people are treated as things to be traded for promises and ideas of a better future. In other words, something Endwalker, and XIV as a whole, has been criticizing for years. These are the foundations of dysfunction, hypocrisy, and tyranny, the constant excuse for brutality and murder, not justice.

Why are they the same? The examples I posted I think show a distinction between the two.

It seems to me the distinction is imagined. You're controlling someone's life to sacrifice them for the sake of another life. It's the same thing, no matter the labels you put on it.

A person forced to die for an evil cause is an evil act is evil. A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible. Do you think conscription by the Allies in WW2 was an evil act?

Again, these are just falsehoods and titles, used to rationalize something which is not morally justifiable. "A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible"? No, absolutely not, I'm not going to invoke godwin's law but you must know exactly what follows that logic. Yes, forced conscription is wrong, no matter the enemy. For someone who proposes to be a moral absolutist, you really do seem intent on taking positions which completely erode concepts such as "good and evil" and render them nothing but empty moralization. Again, this logic your using is the exact line of thought that leads to atrocity. This is what I'm talking about when I'm asking people to use some critical thinking about the ideas they're raising.

[EaraGrace]

Interesting argumentation, given you've just assumed a position that justifies everything the Ancients were doing on Elpis and their entire plan to sacrifice lives, something you've been so critical of in the past.

No? I never argued the first sacrifice was wrong, only that what follows is wrong. The third sacrifice is the core of the issue, as there isn’t a justifiable reasons beyond grief to justify it. It’s harvesting an organ from an innocent to try to save someone you personally care about.

But really, "we have to pragmatically violate our supposed ideals for the greater good"? You must know how completely faulty and self-defeating that is, it's logic that renders the original view and intent morally destitute and worthless.

Where have I “violated” my beliefs.

If they were actually acting in accordance with their ideals, yes that is precisely what they would do. But remember, we're talking about a level of values import where someone actually does believe that the bear's life is worth more than a human life and should be protected over a human life, not a case where it's just some half-hearted idea. That itself would still be hypocrisy, but we're talking about an absolutist position where one is willing to weigh the lives of other people and trade them in reality, not just some layman notion. And to be clear, I'm not saying it's morally wrong for that person to defend their own life. I'd just like some honesty about it.

It’s not honestly, it’s stripping away context and complexity and trying to ground this in a categorical duty you find aesthetically pleasing. It all comes down to why we value life, which we’ll get into in the next response.

You also sidestepped my first point in that response. Why exactly is an individual life of less uniqueness and import than the idea of all life?

Without life one does not have virtue (good) and thus lacking any sort of life we lack any sort of good. That is why life is important. Others will disagree of course, but that’s my moral position. Notice how I can hold that life is precious and that sometimes people who use their lives to harm others shouldn’t not be suffered to do so. Because I’m not solely concerned with some vague moral duty, I’m worried about why a person kills another.

A society where a conscripted soldier is forced to die for a child but a parent can leave their child to die doesn't sound very just at all to me, even if we just table the pregnancy part of it. It sounds to me like the ideals you're talking about are the exact foundations of an unjust society, a system where nebulous concepts are given priority over individuals, where the lives of people are treated as things to be traded for promises and ideas of a better future. In other words, something Endwalker, and XIV as a whole, has been criticizing for years. These are the foundations of dysfunction, hypocrisy, and tyranny, the constant excuse for brutality and murder, not justice.

Justice is an abstract principle, as is equality, kindness, mercy, or courage. They’re all “ideals” and “nebulous concepts” that we place as the foundations of our society, and oftentimes enforce over wellbeing. As we should. You’re equivocating all ideals as equally bad, when in actuality the only good world is one that values these sorts of things. If I asked whether you would live in a society that values justice and equality and one that does not, you would of course choose the latter despite the fact that these are just abstract concepts. Which comes down to either hypocrisy or you just didn’t think it through.

And yknow, the reason why I wanted to avoid the abortion comparison is perfectly illustrated here. Comparing abortion to leaving a child to die ignores the complexity of the issue when it comes to how we consider personhood and bodily autonomy, aspects that clearly impact how we apply any moral principles we glean from the topic.

It seems to me the distinction is imagined. You're controlling someone's life to sacrifice them for the sake of another life. It's the same thing, no matter the labels you put on it.

You’ve yet to explain how the distinction is imagined when I gave several examples of how valuing one leads to harming the other. By all means explain how I can believe in some “greater good” by harming life if there’s supposedly no distinction between the two?

Again, these are just falsehoods and titles, used to rationalize something which is not morally justifiable. "A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible"? No, absolutely not, I'm not going to invoke godwin's law but you must know exactly what follows that logic.

Ok then we have moral disagreement going back to our core principles. That’s fine. I think you’re undercutting you’re own argument with that line however. After all, simply acting in self defense is in fact me forcing someone to die because the cause is just.

Yes, forced conscription is wrong, no matter the enemy. For someone who proposes to be a moral absolutist, you really do seem intent on taking positions which completely erode concepts such as "good and evil" and render them nothing but empty moralization. Again, this logic your using is the exact line of thought that leads to atrocity. This is what I'm talking about when I'm asking people to use some critical thinking about the ideas they're raising.

You’ve never actually taken the time to explore my positions or consider what I’m saying beyond the strawman so of course you feel that way. I’m not a Kantian or Utilitarian. I don’t hold duties or maximizing happiness to be the ultimate good, others do and good for them but that’s not me. I’m a virtue ethicist. I’m more interested in the why than the what. What motivates actions than what the consequences are. What you claim is me obfuscating good is really just you never bothering to consider that what I consider to be good doesn’t follow your preconception.

[SentioftheHoukai]

I don't really think any of you are qualified to debate "justice" and its meaning to be perfectly honest. Not when so many of you refuse to "judge" Venat and Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three with equal, truly open eyes unclouded by bias. I have a very strong, overbearing but most importantly EQUAL understanding of justice and it makes me many enemies because people get petty and upset when justices applies to them and their people. For the record, I condemn the Ascians AND Venat. I think their actions have damned them both. But I can't take anyone seriously who uses ZENOS quality rationale to handwave shit because "muh abstract concepts". Nihilists always use that as an excuse to get away with their crimes.

Justice is an abstract principle, as is equality, kindness, mercy, or courage. They’re all “ideals” and “nebulous concepts” that we place as the foundations of our society, and oftentimes enforce over wellbeing. As we should. You’re equivocating all ideals as equally bad, when in actuality the only good world is one that values these sorts of things. If I asked whether you would live in a society that values justice and equality and one that does not, you would of course choose the latter despite the fact that these are just abstract concepts. Which comes down to either hypocrisy or you just didn’t think it through.

Yeah. This is so awfully similar to what Zenos said to Jullus, and he too was using that "none of this truly matters" tripe as an excuse to avoid facing justice. Also, the bolded part especially? About how we MUST enforce justice over the wellbeing of life? That is how tyrant monsters of men are made. History should have proven how dangerous this line of thinking is, alas humans continue to use it. So long as it's possible for someone to hold enough power to force someone to live how they will it, be it through twisting of the arm, or prohibitive laws, etc. etc. you can always count on SOMEONE abusing that power. "For their own good/greater good" are the philosophical building blocks of tyranny, and we see it in action in modern human history every day of our lives nearly no matter where we live.