| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 03:13:21
Upon request: Great Reader Kentinal has asked me, "The only thing I do wonder is if you believe always killing invaders an Evil act?"
Great Reader Kentinal, thank you for your question!
_______________
I am going to answer this question predicated on a particular ethic being the modality by which I choose an action. I will start with a teleological approach, and then a deontological approach, since I've recently been discussing that with Master Rupert.
Teleological Approach
No, I do not believe that killing invaders is an evil act. It's the ends that matter. If I am defending my people, and in the course of defending my people, some unfortunate/bad things happen, it is the outcome that matters. I need to protect my people, way of life, economy, etc. They shouldn't have attacked me in the first place, and this never would have had to be a point of discussion.
_______________
Deontological Approach
It depends. How I am going about it, informs me as to whether I am crossing a line or not. My religion (I will argue from a point of view of revering Siamorphe) dictates that as the ruler of my nation, and a devout follower of Siamorphe, I am absolutely responsible for the achieving the best interests of my followers. However, I know that my Divine Liege associates with the Triad, and out of respect, I will take measured responses to ensure that I do not become like the barbaric Tuigan barbarians, the ruthless warlords of Mulmaster, or the slavers of Thay. I, and my people, are better than that. I will kill what I must. However, I will try for diplomacy first, and then seek compensation, if viable. The best interests of my people come first, and I will not sacrifice my principles or become a mindless slave to slaughter: Garagos is not my Liege.
________________
That is my beginning of this conversation. Those are two of many positions one could take, depending on their ethic.
What do you think, Great Reader Kentinal, and others?
Best regards,
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 22:37:12
Great Reader Darden,
Fair enough.
Knowing that chance is defined as:
chance: "the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design"
You can't if you accept that there is no design. :)
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I’m going to ignore real world conflict; I’ve had enough of it.
Adventurers...it just comes down to the roll of the dice. How can we debate chance?
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 18:10:12
I’m going to ignore real world conflict; I’ve had enough of it.
Adventurers...it just comes down to the roll of the dice. How can we debate chance? |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 17:55:09
Great Reader Darden,
So, this is where we get into an ethical quandary.
If, as ISIS did in Raqqa, Syria, and occupies towns while keeping high civilian populations there as human shields, how do you contend with that? Movement into that city and making contact with the enemy would certainly cause civilians to be harmed as we saw ISIS carry through with their threat in Mosul.
Bringing it back to the Realms, knowing that likely both sides would have similar assets at their disposal, i.e. Art, Power, siege, and more, how would you contend with a very real, 'legitimate' tactic, for the underdog in an attempt to gain the upperhand on your forces?
Best regards, and thank you again for the spirited debate! :)
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
As I said, do what is most efficient without bringing harm to your own people.
I would use magic in the FR to get rid of the Zhentilar. That is what “adventurers” are good for.
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 17:20:52
As I said, do what is most efficient without bringing harm to your own people.
I would use magic in the FR to get rid of the Zhentilar. That is what “adventurers” are good for. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 08:04:31
Master Ayrik,
Using the MLRS only as a visual we can all relate to when considering magical means in the Realms I feel delivers the aim I was going for: battlefield control. I won't jump into any further only because I know it goes a bit too far astray, but the point is to demonstrate that there are means by which to delivery overwhelming defeats. If the desire was to cause an overwhelming defeat would such weapons be viable, in this case powerful magic from arch-mages, high priestesses, the 'tech' would exist. :)
So how would an occupied town by enemy forces that is of strategic importance and with many civilian captives be contended with for example? Use Raqqa, Syria as an example of how we fixed it.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Military decisions are objective-based. And complicated by politics, economics, etc. It's quite wasteful to utterly destroy "an entire grid square" (or any other thing) when the cost of doing so is high (not just the munitions and deployments but also political fallout and psychological impacts, etc) while the gains are low (you likely could've contested or denied the area or neutralized the enemy advantage in some other, easier, cheaper way). It's why we don't nuke everything into oblivion, war is meaningless if it just burns the prize you're fighting over.
Soldiers have been versed in honor-vs-duty since ancient times. Perhaps more educated in modern times (at least in the strategic echelons) - or perhaps not - but at least modern "civilized" militaries do make some attempt to adhere to modern rules for "civilized" warfare.
Never a simple matter to define conflicts with keywords like "just" and "ethical", they're based on personal/cultural/historical values which (like opinions) are basically all equally valid.
Is the hypothetical example in the OP about foreign armies invading your homeland or about your armies invading a foreign land? In both instances the conflict brings unwanted death and destruction, challenges the culture and threatens the institutions local people value dearly (a royal person, a castle, a state, a religion, etc). Each side believes their fight is "just" because if they didn't then they wouldn't be fighting.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 07:49:49
Great Reader Darden,
So, if a smaller force, let's say some Zhentarim take over a mid-sized town and hold it with well placed soldiers to ensure that people can't leave, so that they can be used as a human shield. The idea is for that town to have its utility as a supply chain resupply point eradicated, which will happen if the Zhentarim hold it. The town has 7,200 people, with 300 Zhentarim controlling it. Would you be willing to sacrifice those lives of your people to root out those Zhentarim.
So, in this case, your military analysts tell you that the loss of military forces will exceed the efficacious value of the 7,200 civilians. Do you risk the civilian lives to gain back the town knowing most or all of those civilians could die, to save larger amounts of your civilians, or do you back off?
In real life, think of when the Russians annexed the Crimea with a small force and held it for an example.
Best
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Great Reader Darden,
Fair enough! So, do you feel the means are irrelevant so long as you put the invasion down?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Killing an invader is the best way to stop them. I'm not a believer in "good" or "evil" as forces on a personal level; but if we are talking about the Forgotten Realms, I don't think it evil to put an end to an invasion by the most expedient means possible.
I would never be a good choice as President of the United States...I believe in the utilization of too much force to end conflicts as quickly as possible.
To answer your question: use of any force is fine as long as it doesn't hurt those you are trying to protect.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 06:02:52
Military decisions are objective-based. And complicated by politics, economics, etc. It's quite wasteful to utterly destroy "an entire grid square" (or any other thing) when the cost of doing so is high (not just the munitions and deployments but also political fallout and psychological impacts, etc) while the gains are low (you likely could've contested or denied the area or neutralized the enemy advantage in some other, easier, cheaper way). It's why we don't nuke everything into oblivion, war is meaningless if it just burns the prize you're fighting over.
Soldiers have been versed in honor-vs-duty since ancient times. Perhaps more educated in modern times (at least in the strategic echelons) - or perhaps not - but at least modern "civilized" militaries do make some attempt to adhere to modern rules for "civilized" warfare.
Never a simple matter to define conflicts with keywords like "just" and "ethical", they're based on personal/cultural/historical values which (like opinions) are basically all equally valid.
Is the hypothetical example in the OP about foreign armies invading your homeland or about your armies invading a foreign land? In both instances the conflict brings unwanted death and destruction, challenges the culture and threatens the institutions local people value dearly (a royal person, a castle, a state, a religion, etc). Each side believes their fight is "just" because if they didn't then they wouldn't be fighting. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 03:29:54
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Great Reader Darden,
Fair enough! So, do you feel the means are irrelevant so long as you put the invasion down?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Killing an invader is the best way to stop them. I'm not a believer in "good" or "evil" as forces on a personal level; but if we are talking about the Forgotten Realms, I don't think it evil to put an end to an invasion by the most expedient means possible.
I would never be a good choice as President of the United States...I believe in the utilization of too much force to end conflicts as quickly as possible.
To answer your question: use of any force is fine as long as it doesn't hurt those you are trying to protect. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 02:29:09
Great Reader Kentinal,
That's actually a pretty heavy question. Let me address that question with this...
First, how do we define just? What ethical model is being used to determine the parameters of just?
Within the confines of the Realms, how come Cormyr and other countries not utilize what I am certain was apocalyptically powerful magics? I am gathering they didn't utilize artifacts from Netheril, Halruaa (ok, Netheril again), Imaskari artifacts, etc., because they knew that what would happen along the way to a victory would be too costly.
In a real world example, as a retired U.S. Army Infantryman, we have a plethora and almost endless amount of power we can deliver upon our enemies to annihilate them. However, sometimes utilizing those weapons can be too destructive, beyond the scope of our enemies AO and our own function, i.e. MLRS as but one example wiping out an entire grid square.
Would the cost of life, property, and down range consequences, i.e. water, be too much, or is it all on board regardless of military and civilian casualties?
Great question, and I'm glad you asked it.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
If the goal is just, does it really matter the means?
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 01:39:12
If the goal is just, does it really matter the means? |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 01:08:36
Great Reader Darden,
Fair enough! So, do you feel the means are irrelevant so long as you put the invasion down?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Killing an invader is the best way to stop them. I'm not a believer in "good" or "evil" as forces on a personal level; but if we are talking about the Forgotten Realms, I don't think it evil to put an end to an invasion by the most expedient means possible.
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 00:26:25
Killing an invader is the best way to stop them. I'm not a believer in "good" or "evil" as forces on a personal level; but if we are talking about the Forgotten Realms, I don't think it evil to put an end to an invasion by the most expedient means possible. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 20:51:11
Great Reader Aryrik,
Fantastic selection of applied philosophers for sure! I can appreciate using folk such as them to use the actually used, as opposed to the theoretical. I often try to avoid using my own perspective in these kinds of forums, as it provides the one perspective that I find most people don't try to utilize effectively as a means to an end for analysis.
I can say though, when you look at ROE's in the Infantry, they are predicated on an ethic. ROE's for most combatant's facing a US combat element are do what you need to. Heart's and minds was a significant change from previous ROE's for reasons that the CoC decided was the right choice. I'm not here to debate all that, rather, just use it as an applied example.
So, using that as an example, I find myself wondering: why would King Azoun IV (perhaps) have a vastly different ROE, if you will, from Yamun Khahan during the Tuigan invasion? Cultural differences, that are defined by different values, which are driven by ethical models that "exemplify" their moral character.
That's what I find would be interesting to add to the Realms. The reasons why people, organizations, nation-states, regions, religions, etc. do what they do enmasse.
Also, regarding that Wikipedia list: Sun Tzu. That is literally by 'bible' if you will (not religious, but I like Waukeen and the Red Knight a lot). Best frickin' tome ever! I use it daily, or at least try to! :)
Thoughts?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
We all want our game setting to be (pseudo)realistic.
But D&D is still intended to be a fantasy game, not an accurate simulation of reality. Written more for children than for professional soldiers or combat veterans. Killing monsters is okay (and fun) in the game environment because they aren't things which really exist. (Plus XP and loot is awarded for each kill, but that's a different topic of argument.)
I think it's fair to say that few prominent scholars and philosophers have actually done much killing, have actually been placed in situations where they must apply philosophical thinking to a strategy or a battlefield before the killing starts.
It's why I find the works of certain authors (Thucydides, Clausewitz, Bismarck, Richilieu, Hobbes, Malthus, Machiavelli, etc) more interesting than rarefied academic philosophy. Guys who've done their fair share of ugly things - surviving, killing (or commanding others to kill), exploiting, manipulating, etc - for a complex combination of ambitious, selfish, noble, and selfless reasons. The utilitarian approach is always found to be the easiest - break the threat, kill the enemy, strong take from the weak. Yet the deontological approach is always preferred (or pretended) as much as possible. Their written examples and arguments are revealing, revolting, and relevant to the real world. There's really nothing I can say which they haven't already communicated far more effectively or eloquently.
Wikipedia's list of authors and sources is not too shabby. Fascinating that those who are interested in such "applied philosophy" seem to naturally converge on these (and other) sources without Wikipedia's help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 19:46:03
We all want our game setting to be (pseudo)realistic.
But D&D is still intended to be a fantasy game, not an accurate simulation of reality. Written more for children than for professional soldiers or combat veterans. Killing monsters is okay (and fun) in the game environment because they aren't things which really exist. (Plus XP and loot is awarded for each kill, but that's a different topic of argument.)
I think it's fair to say that few prominent scholars and philosophers have actually done much killing, have actually been placed in situations where they must apply philosophical thinking to a strategy or a battlefield before the killing starts.
It's why I find the works of certain authors (Thucydides, Clausewitz, Bismarck, Richilieu, Hobbes, Malthus, Machiavelli, etc) more interesting than rarefied academic philosophy. Guys who've done their fair share of ugly things - surviving, killing (or commanding others to kill), exploiting, manipulating, etc - for a complex combination of ambitious, selfish, noble, and selfless reasons. The utilitarian approach is always found to be the easiest - break the threat, kill the enemy, strong take from the weak. Yet the deontological approach is always preferred (or pretended) as much as possible. Their written examples and arguments are revealing, revolting, and relevant to the real world. There's really nothing I can say which they haven't already communicated far more effectively or eloquently.
Wikipedia's list of authors and sources is not too shabby. Fascinating that those who are interested in such "applied philosophy" seem to naturally converge on these (and other) sources without Wikipedia's help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 05:13:54
Acolyte MrSukx,
Yeah, I agree. I think Great Reader Ayrik has a good point about loftiness too though. At what point do you say, "Enough!", and pull out all of the stops and get it done? At what point do you say, I am good, I can afford to be ethical?
Great Reader Ayrik, Acolyte MrSukx: thoughts?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by MrSukx
Cpthero2,
From a teleological perspective I would say, no it doesn't matter how the outcome is achieved as it's purely focused on the end result. So long as the people and boarders are safe then goal achieved.
From a deontological perspective it would matter greatly I think, as it's more focused on being just throughout the process. In this situation diplomacy would be needed first and some kind of mutual agreement or treaty would be ideal. If that fails then to crush the opposition as quickly and thoroughly as needed to get them to leave your lands. Try to be merciful and take as many prisoners as you can rather than slaying their entire ranks.
At least, this is my understanding of the subject matter.
Thanks for the reply cpthero2
|
| MrSukx |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 05:04:29
Cpthero2,
From a teleological perspective I would say, no it doesn't matter how the outcome is achieved as it's purely focused on the end result. So long as the people and boarders are safe then goal achieved.
From a deontological perspective it would matter greatly I think, as it's more focused on being just throughout the process. In this situation diplomacy would be needed first and some kind of mutual agreement or treaty would be ideal. If that fails then to crush the opposition as quickly and thoroughly as needed to get them to leave your lands. Try to be merciful and take as many prisoners as you can rather than slaying their entire ranks.
At least, this is my understanding of the subject matter.
Thanks for the reply cpthero2
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 04:29:25
Great Reader Ayrik,
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'd love to hear why you feel that deontology and "humanism" have "always been inspirational and lofty ideals"? I will say as a retired U.S. Army Infantryman, I think I get why you may feel that way, but I want to avoid assuming as much as possible and get it from you directly. :)
quote:
We can't entirely disregard humanism and brutally force ends-are-the-means through every challenge or obstacle set before us. Because then we'd be dehumanized like monsters or automatons.
Great point! So, where do you feel the line is, in examples perhaps from the Forgotten Realms? :)
So, when you refer to murder and kill regarding enemies, how do you define those? If one were to take a Christian perspective (I am not that by the way, or anything at all, actually), murdering and killing are quite different. I would imagine this makes a significant difference from one religion to another.
You make a fantastic point regarding the juxtaposition between deontologists and consequentialists! It is this moral quandary that appears to be at times unnecessarily difficult for the deontologist. Does the work matter you feel? Within the Realms, do you feel with your Great Reader knowledge, that there are examples of those two outlooks that are well defined?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Deontology and "humanism" have always been inspirational and lofty ideals.
But the reality is that utilitarian approaches are always the ones which achieve results, always the exingencies and contingencies which get implemented in situations which demand results.
We can't entirely disregard humanism and brutally force ends-are-the-means through every challenge or obstacle set before us. Because then we'd be dehumanized like monsters or automatons.
Your examples tend to focus on choice of actions, not on choices of inaction. Killing adversaries is just as much a murderous atrocity as passively allowing them to kill you. Of course you (and your families, etc) would live, which is a justifiable and "good" thing. But the invaders would die (and their families would suffer, etc), which is not so good. You would be a murderer, a killer. Would you suffer a lifetime of guilt and remorse? Or would you be entirely unrepentant and unaffected by it? Which of these options is "more good" or "less dehumanizing"? At least the utilitarian can justify things as consistent with his philosophy. The deontologist is faced only with attempting to reconcile an impossible crisis between bad options.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 04:21:40
Acolyte Mr.Sukx,
I appreciate your input: thank you!
I agree with virtually everything (and perhaps, everything), but I seek clarification on a few things:
quote:
Simply put, as a member of the governing body, I would say that it's never evil to cut down invaders assuming that diplomacy was at least attempted.
Does the means by which that cutting down occurs matter from a teleological perspective? How about a deontological perspective? I am only using those examples as I have been using them regularly. I am happy to delve into more Aristotle based ethics if desired, or others beyond, such as Kant, etc.
Best regards!
quote:
Originally posted by MrSukx
An invader by definition, is there to subjugate or otherwise occupy a nation/region/town ect
A military force to take over, in one way or another, the land which you dwell or own. I believe in this situation, as a member of the governing body, it would be your duty to subvert their advance by almost way possible. Typically better to use diplomacy before bloodshed but never removing bloodshed from the proverbial table.
As a citizen of the area, one would first need to determine if their own governing body is worse (more currupt/ruthless/warmongering/backhanded) than the invading force.
Simply put, as a member of the governing body, I would say that it's never evil to cut down invaders assuming that diplomacy was at least attempted.
As a citizen it greatly depends on the situation at large as to if it's evil or not.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 04:06:40
Deontology and "humanism" have always been inspirational and lofty ideals.
But the reality is that utilitarian approaches are always the ones which achieve results, always the exingencies and contingencies which get implemented in situations which demand results.
We can't entirely disregard humanism and brutally force ends-are-the-means through every challenge or obstacle set before us. Because then we'd be dehumanized like monsters or automatons.
Your examples tend to focus on choice of actions, not on choices of inaction. Killing adversaries is just as much a murderous atrocity as passively allowing them to kill you. Of course you (and your families, etc) would live, which is a justifiable and "good" thing. But the invaders would die (and their families would suffer, etc), which is not so good. You would be a murderer, a killer. Would you suffer a lifetime of guilt and remorse? Or would you be entirely unrepentant and unaffected by it? Which of these options is "more good" or "less dehumanizing"? At least the utilitarian can justify things as consistent with his philosophy. The deontologist is faced only with attempting to reconcile an impossible crisis between bad options. |
| MrSukx |
Posted - 21 Feb 2020 : 03:38:22
An invader by definition, is there to subjugate or otherwise occupy a nation/region/town ect
A military force to take over, in one way or another, the land which you dwell or own. I believe in this situation, as a member of the governing body, it would be your duty to subvert their advance by almost way possible. Typically better to use diplomacy before bloodshed but never removing bloodshed from the proverbial table.
As a citizen of the area, one would first need to determine if their own governing body is worse (more currupt/ruthless/warmongering/backhanded) than the invading force.
Simply put, as a member of the governing body, I would say that it's never evil to cut down invaders assuming that diplomacy was at least attempted.
As a citizen it greatly depends on the situation at large as to if it's evil or not. |
|
|
