Quote:
Well, let's see where Going Rogue takes us...
| I wish the game allowed us to wrestle with some moral dilemmas (dilemmae?). |
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
Quote:
No, there really isn't a need for that, or a point in doing so.|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
First off, I should clarify Facade.
|
Quote:
| I wish the game allowed us to wrestle with some moral dilemmas (dilemmae?). |
If there had been a human GM, I could argue my case, explain the character motivations, and (hopefully) be treated in the way I would expect if my case was good enough. There is no arguing with a computer's pre-programmed perceptions of what an action means.
So, Going Rogue is likely to have 'moral dilemmas' to deal with. Expect them to be fairly black and white. The only grey possibility is if they start allowing for 'dark heroes,' the kind of guys who would blow Fascade's brains out as soon as they heard he had the capability and didn't understand why he shouldn't do it. The kind of guy who does believe that a few dying to save many is a valid option.
If that option is open, I'll be happy. My old main always toed the grey line. My current main is certainly in line to head that way. And I have another character with an 8000 year history of falling off the wagon and trying to take over small contries (or continents).
I'm not exactly holding my breath, but I'm hoping.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
The kind of dilemma presented in the OP is staggering. I agree with many other posters in this thread that a suppression of one emotional aspect of humanity (or all of them) would be extremely disastrous. If someone were to, say, get rid of all hate in the universe, then you might as well get rid of love too, since it's hate's opposite. There's two sides to every coin, here, and it's impossible to have one side without the other. Even a Mobius strip has an inside and an outside (the empty space surrounded by the "ring" it creates, and the empty space which surrounds the "ring" itself).
I also believe that trying to "program thoughts out" wouldn't really work, since your mind would ultimately realize that something was wrong and actively fight against it (whether that fight is consicous or subconscious depends on if the individual knows what the "programmer" is doing). Such a fight would lead to either the overthrow of the programming (if the fight was sucessful), mass insanity (if the program couldn't be overwhelmed, and minds destroyed themselves), or no thought whatsoever (if the programmer tried this to prevent failure/resistance).
This leads to another question; if a person was born within a mentally programmed society, would they have the same issues as those who were not? All it takes to realize that something isn't normal is to compare it to that mind's definition of "normal". For a child born into a programmed society, the programming would be normal and familiar. They would probably be afraid of not having it, since people generally fear the unfamiliar. This is a good point in Facade's favor, since he would only have to maintain the program long enough for those who were born without it to die (probably not even that long, since those who were very young when it started would forget that things were ever different).
I'll probably spend a considerable amount of time in the next few days thinking of a counter for this point. The simplest one I can currently think of is that imposing such a system is morally ambiguous at best, and downright evil and self-serving at worst. That's a big range, and it depends on the reaction of the society that such programming was imposed upon.
I just realized that I left out those who wouldn't be affected by the psychic program that Facade has in mind. Due to their high potential for disruption, they would eventually have to be eliminated completely, unless Facade found a way to control them as well. In such a system, an individual would have to be controlled or eliminated in order to protect the system. Without such protocols in place, the system would ultimately fail.
I know this post is already super long, but I have one more question: Besides having discussions like this one, what does someone do with a degree in philosophy? What kind of jobs are out there for a philosophy major? I'm just wondering. 
Quote:
Well, you're going to criticize me about the character's conception, then I have to elaborate somewhat to defend myself from the criticism.|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
No, there really isn't a need for that, or a point in doing so.
|
As far as moral dileemas goes, even something as classic as being made to choose between stopping the villain and stopping a disaster.
Spiderman has Electro on the ropes, so he blasts a railway line as a train is coming. Now Spidey has to decide - do I save the train or stop Electro?
It's a classic thing, and things like this might add a wrinkle to fights. Actually, I always thought this is the kind of thing that should have been balancing the villains against us, rather than extravagant attributes (30 times our health, 10 times our damage, etc.).
Quote:
Actually, it kind of resembles the argument in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (my favourite book, if you've never read it, I highly recommend it).|
Originally Posted by Lucretia_MacEvil
The kind of dilemma presented in the OP is staggering. I agree with many other posters in this thread that a suppression of one emotional aspect of humanity (or all of them) would be extremely disastrous. If someone were to, say, get rid of all hate in the universe, then you might as well get rid of love too, since it's hate's opposite. There's two sides to every coin, here, and it's impossible to have one side without the other. Even a Mobius strip has an inside and an outside (the empty space surrounded by the "ring" it creates, and the empty space which surrounds the "ring" itself).
I also believe that trying to "program thoughts out" wouldn't really work, since your mind would ultimately realize that something was wrong and actively fight against it (whether that fight is consicous or subconscious depends on if the individual knows what the "programmer" is doing). Such a fight would lead to either the overthrow of the programming (if the fight was sucessful), mass insanity (if the program couldn't be overwhelmed, and minds destroyed themselves), or no thought whatsoever (if the programmer tried this to prevent failure/resistance). This leads to another question; if a person was born within a mentally programmed society, would they have the same issues as those who were not? All it takes to realize that something isn't normal is to compare it to that mind's definition of "normal". For a child born into a programmed society, the programming would be normal and familiar. They would probably be afraid of not having it, since people generally fear the unfamiliar. This is a good point in Facade's favor, since he would only have to maintain the program long enough for those who were born without it to die (probably not even that long, since those who were very young when it started would forget that things were ever different). I'll probably spend a considerable amount of time in the next few days thinking of a counter for this point. The simplest one I can currently think of is that imposing such a system is morally ambiguous at best, and downright evil and self-serving at worst. That's a big range, and it depends on the reaction of the society that such programming was imposed upon. I just realized that I left out those who wouldn't be affected by the psychic program that Facade has in mind. Due to their high potential for disruption, they would eventually have to be eliminated completely, unless Facade found a way to control them as well. In such a system, an individual would have to be controlled or eliminated in order to protect the system. Without such protocols in place, the system would ultimately fail. I know this post is already super long, but I have one more question: Besides having discussions like this one, what does someone do with a degree in philosophy? What kind of jobs are out there for a philosophy major? I'm just wondering. |
I am a philosophy grad. I'm currently studying Psychology, because I've gone unemployed for about 8 years...
(In fairness, I took philosophy as preparation for law school, but then decided not to get into law...)
Not sure this one been brought up but...
What is Right and what is wrong?
Romans lived a very sexual life and it was even encouraged to have Gay and Pedophile lifestyles.
In southern states of the US slavery was Normal and right for the culture.
In many parts of the world even today women was seen and seen now as property
Human sacrifices was done for religious reasons.
Not very long ago it was OK to spank a child with a belt or paddle.
These things weren't seen as Wrong or Evil and was accepted. What things we do today would be wrong in the future?
While both are dispicable 'Re-programming' the entire populace of the word is far worse then slavery, hell even human sacrifice.
You're taking away somthing that's fundamental to human nature, and I don't think that should ever be considered right.
But then again I think killing is a terrible thing that should never be done, even to those who have killed others.
Quote:
My first reaction to this was "since when does philosophy have anything to do with being a lawyer?" That's probably my cynicism/twisted humor talking, but that was my first thought. My second thought was "If someone is studying philosophy and law, do the two sets of knowledge annihilate each other in a sort-of matter-antimatter explosion?" Again, cynicism and twisted humor, but it seems like a good question, at least to me |
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Actually, it kind of resembles the argument in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (my favourite book, if you've never read it, I highly recommend it).
I am a philosophy grad. I'm currently studying Psychology, because I've gone unemployed for about 8 years... (In fairness, I took philosophy as preparation for law school, but then decided not to get into law...) |
.Oh, I've never read that book, but since I'm going back to school myself, I doubt I'll have much time.
My main, Tiger White, has faced many moral dilemmas in her past, and she'd side with Professor X on this issue. Plus, being somewhat impulsive, and SOMETIMES has a similar view on things as Wolverine (she once slaughtered 100's of Council soldiers in a big RP plot after a very close friend was killed), I wouldn't give Facade's chances much on making it out of the Prof's office with his head still on his shoulders. 
She's also somewhat overpowered, like Facade is (as Ravenswing will no doubt confirm! ), and I've been accused of making her a Mary Sue in the past when the angst levels were getting silly, so I tend to keep her WELL away from any plot these days.
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Quote:
You could choose not to defend the character. It's really beside the point.| Well, you're going to criticize me about the character's conception, then I have to elaborate somewhat to defend myself from the criticism. |
Quote:
| Spiderman has Electro on the ropes, so he blasts a railway line as a train is coming. Now Spidey has to decide - do I save the train or stop Electro? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Actually, it kind of resembles the argument in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (my favourite book, if you've never read it, I highly recommend it).
|
One of our GG roleplayer, Zortel, created Unity Earth. It's a world where everyone is essentially controlled by an alternate-Earth version of one of her characters (Zortel, actually). It's interesting to see the range of reactions to it portrayed by people's characters.
And yes, FFM, Ellie is an overpowered Mary Sue.
Just for the record, my own character War Crow developed in a way which turned him into a virtual god. He placed limits on himself to control his powers and make himself 'human' again, otherwise he was unplayable. He doesn't see much action anyway these days, he just doesn't sparkle any more.My current main was designed to never get like that. She's human, and isn't ever going to be anything else. Her greatest worry is that she isn't human, considering what she can do.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
At least I keep her away from plots these days! |
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
And yes, FFM, Ellie is an overpowered Mary Sue.
|
She's just for social RP nowadays...
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And in an actual RP environment, such is the fate of many OP characters. Retirement.
Back on-topic: FFM mentioned that Ellie has had moral dilemmas to face, and she has, but those are all based around player-run plot. Trying to mechanise that kind of thing is very hard, if not impossible. Hoping that a game can provide the level of interaction needed to give true depth to moral dilemmas falls into the category of wishful thinking.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
Or you could have chosen not to attack the character based on a miniscule amount of information. As you say, however, this is beside the point.|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
You could choose not to defend the character. It's really beside the point.
|
Quote:
| You're right, that's classic, and Spidey would save the people, and whether or not he also stops Electro depends on whether the storyline is about to end, or he should escape this time. Narrative Imperative has at least as much to do with character decisions in a comic book as any other factor. |
Quote:
| Actually, it's the entire premise of the film Equillibrium. All emotions are supressed by a drug. There is no more war, or murder... but there is killing, lots of it. 'Feeling' is a crime punishable by death. If you want to feel anything you risk being gunned down or incinerated. |
Quote:
| One of our GG roleplayer, Zortel, created Unity Earth. It's a world where everyone is essentially controlled by an alternate-Earth version of one of her characters (Zortel, actually). It's interesting to see the range of reactions to it portrayed by people's characters. |
I'm a philosophy major as well, so this looks like a bundle of fun for me.
A most intrinsically important aspect of the human condition is our ability to damn ourselves. I don't necessarily mean in the biblical sense of being sent to Hell afterwards to suffer for our misdeeds so much as I mean the ability to face a dilemma and both consciously and willingly make the wrong decision. This is a crucial aspect of humanity.
Consider: the ability to morally ‘fall’ comes hand-in-hand with the ability to do the right thing. Morality is a judgment on actions. If you cannot make the wrong action, than you cannot make the right one either, and so nihilism quite literally sets in.
And so, with that in mind, I arrive to the question the OP presented: if we had the ability to suddenly advance our society to a Utopian level, should we? The answer is no, for a very simple reason. Utopia is, by definition, the pinnacle of civilization, and the challenge is getting there. If we jump to the end, then our society is like an athlete pumped up on steroids: the muscles are big, but there’s no strengthened body to support it. Likewise, if we as a race cannot manage to universally better ourselves, then anything we’re given is worthless because we won’t be able to hold onto it.
Excising all the bad aspects of humanity does not make them an inherently good people. Good people are those who acknowledge their flaws and overcome them. Striping the flaws away doesn’t make them less flawed, just less human.
Oy. I did not want to get into this discussion.
But having walked around the entire holiday with replies in my brain, I suppose I am doomed.
Honestly, this is nto an unknown situation and, as such, doesn't present much of a dilemma to me. We've had plenty of cases in our good ole' Real Life where people have messed up human minds in the name of Utopia. We know these instruments as propaganda, misinformation, brainwashing...
Having lived part of my life in a still-communist Russia - although already in its death-throes- and recalling that period of me as a child, I can safely say that this sort of propaganda is damn effective. And it's always for the good of the world.One does nto have to be a mage, or a Xavier. it is sufficient to be the Creel Committee, or Edward Bernays.
Sure, someone is always liable to pipe up and say "oh no! propaganda in the name of good is different!" bu I say bosh; this is someone, anyone at all, enacting a cavalier decision to determine the good and bad for everybody else without even consulting them much. You've just gift-wrapped your freedom of choice and handed it to some anoymous Other wrapped with blue ribbon.
If the problem then degenerates - in this specific issue - to the matter of one brain vs. many, it's easy enough to resolve by shooting the guy with a revolver, thus avoiding the issue of psychic meddling alltogether. I am fairly confident that my extremely rational character, if faced with someone who is determined to become a future tirant by imposing mind control onthe entire population of the globe, wouldn't hesitate for very long.
...
As for what philosophy majors do, we ahve a joke running arund the university:
A Science major asks why.
An Engineering major asks how.
An Economics major asks how much.
A philosophy major asks: "Would you like fries with that?"
Cynics of the world, unite!
Taking Care of the Multiverse
Quote:
...|
Originally Posted by Genia
As for what philosophy majors do, we ahve a joke running arund the university:
A Science major asks why. An Engineering major asks how. An Economics major asks how much. A philosophy major asks: "Would you like fries with that?" |
.......
It's a little bit true, but that doesn't mean I don't want to HULK SMASH! you for saying it.
Oh, shush.
To wit:
My husabnd - CompSci and Mathematics - hasn't been unemployed since high school, gets an excellent salary and promotions.
Me - Linguistics major, CogSci and Philosophy of Science minor (nine languages and counting).... unemployed.
*CRASH*
Cynics of the world, unite!
Taking Care of the Multiverse
I knew there was a reason I wanted to go to medical school...
The distinction I was getting at with this scene was that it's somewhat unclear, ethically, where the line can be drawn, if at all.
The thought occurred to me that a telepath could easily find Osama Bin Laden, but what to do with him? Killing him outright would create a martyr. Turning him over for trial would create a focus for further violence. So what would you do?
My thinking was a telepath could "edit" Bin Laden's mind so he'd not be inclined to hate and kill for no reason. That led me to the ethical dilemma. Is it right to do this? Does it take away his "right" to free thought? Is that right more valuable than the lives of the people he might kill?
With this in mind, I universalized it and set it in the scene you see at the start of the thread.
The scene played out in my head many times, and then DC published the very excellent Identity Crisis story, which touched on similar themes. It was after this that I thought to post the thread.
(I should also say, I mean no social of political disrespect in this, and if anyone takes offense or is upset in any way by this post, I do apologize.)
Quote:
Okay, hold up. A vastly powerful telepath could do so, yes, but even Xavier couldn't do it without Cerebro.|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
The thought occurred to me that a telepath could easily find Osama Bin Laden
|
Quote:
| but what to do with him? Killing him outright would create a martyr. Turning him over for trial would create a focus for further violence. So what would you do? |
Quote:
| My thinking was a telepath could "edit" Bin Laden's mind so he'd not be inclined to hate and kill for no reason. That led me to the ethical dilemma. Is it right to do this? Does it take away his "right" to free thought? Is that right more valuable than the lives of the people he might kill? |
Bin Laden, like Hitler and many others, is a figurehead and removing that focus does not automatically lead to the removal of the issue associated with it. I'm no political analyst, but I'd guess that Bin Laden is not required to keep radical terrorists going. 'Editing' his mind would do nothing, a lot of his people would assume he had been 'messed with' and plot something bigger and nastier.
Killing Hitler might have stopped the Holocaust, but it would not have stoped the Second World War, which might have been worse if it wasn't being run by a psycho.
One of my other RP friends, Shadowe, has a character capable of almost litterally controlling the world (at the molecular level). That isn't backed up by the ability to understand absolutely everything and predict the results of your actions, however. As a result, 'The Legendary Shadowe' tries very hard to just be a 'normal' hero.
It isn't simply that the kind of thing you propose is unethical, it's that the probability is that it wouldn't work and may result in things being massively worse than they are now.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
Ah, but you see, if you could control his mind, you might turn him to more positive ends. How would his followers react if he turned them away from violence? Either way, Bin Laden was only the door into the greater ethical dilemma.
|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
Frankly, the question is not whether that's ethical, which it isn't, but whether there's even the slightest point.
Bin Laden, like Hitler and many others, is a figurehead and removing that focus does not automatically lead to the removal of the issue associated with it. I'm no political analyst, but I'd guess that Bin Laden is not required to keep radical terrorists going. 'Editing' his mind would do nothing, a lot of his people would assume he had been 'messed with' and plot something bigger and nastier. |
Quote:
That's an easy one to answer. They'd call him an infidel, cut is head off, then go out and blow up another bus/plane/marketplace/whatever.
|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Ah, but you see, if you could control his mind, you might turn him to more positive ends. How would his followers react if he turned them away from violence? Either way, Bin Laden was only the door into the greater ethical dilemma.
|
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Quote:
Heh. You may be right, there.
|
Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
That's an easy one to answer. They'd call him an infidel, cut is head off, then go out and blow up another bus/plane/marketplace/whatever.
|
That was kind of my point, yeah.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
First off, I should clarify Facade. He's not better than everyone else. Being able to distribute his mass and alter its properties allows him to be pretty powerful, but there are limits. He has to be able to figure out how to do it, mechanically. He can do wings that work, because he understands lift and weight ratios, and he knows how the muscles would have to be arranged. He can't do Optic Blasts, however, because he doesn't know how to make them work.
In the story where he nearly beat the Avengers, he did it largely by subterfuge. By masquerading as Jarvis, he got the drop on Cap and many of the others, and with his enhanced abilities, he was able to easily overcome them. Iron Man and some of the others required more creative methods, and he simply couldn't overpower Thor. In the end of the story, Wonder Man escaped and freed the other Avengers, and Facade was forced to flee.
As far as the premise of the thread goes (that is, the moral dilemma), I wish there had been this much discussion when I originally posted it! Some neat comments!
I wish the game allowed us to wrestle with some moral dilemmas (dilemmae?).