The Dresden Files > DF Reference Collection
Harry's murders of Non-humans! (Cold Days spoilers)
raidem:
--- Quote ---Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.
In this case, Mab is the standard for what is or is not morally wrong in regards to Winter Sidhe. According to her, Harry was completely justified.
--- End quote ---
We [or at least, I am not] aren't talking about Mab's morality, we are talking about Harry's. As an outside viewer, I judge Harry's actions on the basis of \my\ morality. Consequently, I find many of his actions to be morally questionable. This action of killing the one sidhe isn't the most reprehensible thing Harry has done. But, Harry's slide into immorality isn't going to begin with Harry slaughtering mortals; it will begin with how he mistreats non-mortals.
--- Quote ---Also, in order for something to be morally wrong there must be an absolute objective standard that makes it wrong.
--- End quote ---
There are quite a few different versions of morals where one doesn't need an absolute objective standard. Moral relativism is more in line with my thinking of morality.
--- Quote ---Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.
--- End quote ---
Serack:
By the way, I think this quote from "Backup" is quite pertinant to this conversation: (btw, Backup is from Thomas' perspective)
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: Backup ---"Scratch one ghoul. My brother hates the creatures with a passion so pure that it's almost holy."
--- End quote ---
Edit: Some context for that quote from the White Night scene where that passion was born:
--- Quote from: WN ch 23 ---"Think they'll rat out their buddy?"
"If they think it'll save their lives?" I asked. In a heartbeat. Maybe less."
"Weasels," Ramirez muttered.
"They are what they are, man," I said. "There's no use in hating them for it. Just be glad we can use it to advantage. Let's go."
[snip]scene where Harry finds that a ghoul killed 2 16 year old's eating parts of the little girl and gets rather upset about it (understatement)[/snip]
The quality of mercy was not Harry.
[/snip]
"Never," I told it. "Never again."
Then I threw it down the shaft.
[/snip]
"Sixteen, Carlos," I said. "Sixteen. It had them for less than eight minutes."
[snip]An enraged Harry kicks one ghoul away to warn others not to pull these shenagans on his watch again and sets up a death trap for the other involving orange juce and desert ants[/snip]
moments later, Ramirez said, "What happened to not hating them?"
"Things change."
--- End quote ---
I think this is pertinant because it directly shows Harry's empathy for a class of magical beings getting destroyed in a fit of rage. To these beings Harry's the monster.
knnn:
Very much agree with the morality issue.
Ask yourself the following question: Could Harry have similarly enforced his new Rule by simply freezing the offending noble, then letting him thaw out in a day or two? If yes, then this killing really was mostly superfluous, and therefore (in my book) morally lacking.
Even if you argue that the only way to get the Winter Court to listen was to kill someone, I would argue that the correct thing to do would be to kill the next noble to break that Rule (i.e. make sport of mortals in front of Harry), not someone who for all we know wanted clarification under what exact circumstances (these are Faerie after all) the rule applies.
Elanmorin:
--- Quote from: raidem on November 05, 2013, 05:27:10 PM ---We [or at least, I am not] aren't talking about Mab's morality, we are talking about Harry's. As an outside viewer, I judge Harry's actions on the basis of \my\ morality. Consequently, I find many of his actions to be morally questionable.
There are quite a few different versions of morals where one doesn't need an absolute objective standard. Moral relativism is more in line with my thinking of morality.
--- End quote ---
Yet if moral relativism is true then you cannot judge Harry by your moral standards. Not to mention that falsifying moral relativism is simple as all I need to do is state that moral relativism is morally wrong, which causes moral relativism to be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.
--- Quote ---Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.
--- End quote ---
Even if that were true in the Dresdenverse, that only supports my position. Harry was in a culture that did not have a moral prohibition against his action, neither is there any reason for Harry to subscribe to your relative code of morality nor for you to hold him to that standard.
Serack:
I added some extra thoughts to reply #26
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version