The Dresden Files > DF Reference Collection
Harry's murders of Non-humans! (Cold Days spoilers)
Gigglestomp:
Harry has never had a problem killing suprnatural beings OR humans, if given the correct reasons.
In retrospect, he was silently horrified about how many enemies, human or otherwise, never seemed to surive encounters with him. This was after marcone pointed it out to him.
But Harry would have no problem pulling a gun on a human and shooting them dead in the middle of a battle, or to protect someone.
The only time he ever really REALLY felt bad were after executing Cassus, Luccio(Corpsetaker), and Susan. He either did it cold or without thinking, and that is what scared him.
He had perfectly legitimate reasons to kill the two fae at his birthday party. After setting the standard, backing down in front of preditors is a sure way to become prey. Numer 1 died because they questioned him. Number 2 died because they questioned him. He was protecting humans like Sarissa, and he couldnt afford to come off soft, or he may find himself turned upon by winter.
He wouldnt feel bad about it if he killed 100 more, for the right reasons.
raidem:
--- Quote ---Yet if moral relativism is true then you cannot judge Harry by your moral standards.
--- End quote ---
Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards. By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me. Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.
--- Quote ---neither is there any reason for Harry to subscribe to your relative code of morality nor for you to hold him to that standard.
--- End quote ---
I disagree. Harry wants to be a good guy. Also, I am the person who is real; Harry isn't. Therefore, mine is the opinion that matters. And, as such, I will hold him to my moral standards whether you agree with that fact or not.
Serack:
guess that settles that.
nevermind, what peregrine says
vv (down there)
peregrine:
--- Quote from: raidem on November 05, 2013, 07:15:14 PM ---Not true, I can do all the judging I want based on my moral standards. By believing in moral relativism, I must allow that there are others who would disagree with me. Case in point, you disagree with me regarding Harry's morality.
--- End quote ---
Pretty sure that's not moral relativism, that's moral absolutism with the recognition that though you are of course right, others may disagree with you.
raidem:
--- Quote ---Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong,
--- End quote ---
Moral absolutism states that there is an Absolute standard.
Moral relativism simply holds that there are disagreements about morals and that there is no "right or wrong."
--- Quote ---Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version