The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers

Vampires and Evil, a philosophical rabbit hole.

<< < (5/11) > >>

jonas:

--- Quote ---Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.
Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence.  That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.
--- End quote ---
That would be like writing a small book... i'm not that good at making a linear organization of an idea... the work, and from scratch... uhh. I'll have to take a rain check until motivation moves in.
it's Not a perfect translation but
--- Quote ---Taiji (simplified Chinese: 太极; traditional Chinese: 太極; pinyin: tàijí; literally: "great pole") is a Chinese cosmological term for the "Supreme Ultimate" state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential, the oneness before duality, from which Yin and Yang originate, can be compared with the old Wuji
--- End quote ---
That's the essence of the idea behind the balance, Wuji, one state broke into yin-yang, the first tier being existence nonexistence but, then light and dark, ect, but always the same two poles balance. Like taiji by both sides taking some of the other in balance. Afterlives prevent true death back to yang/nonexistence but also make necromancy type 'nonexistent' places exist, things like Mordite and Outsiders. Need a quote I can't find here, can't narrow down the specific mythos yet, about the endless dividing shadow from which all life then takes shape and divides(thought it was Maori but...maybe south America some where) and returns to shadow on death to divide out again, Using Pakua which explains divisions in life from yin-yang down to the five elements themselves. All of which can be partially applied to starborn/archetype characters in generations and supported by the curse in BR, she talks of the Hunter of shadows. This can be seen as the amalgamation of Ouranos, Chronos, The Darkness, ect. Also supported by Lucifer being termed the 'darkest' shadow and MW the Tallest, both exist as part of inside despite being of the Outside. the Little dot in  the Yin-yang symbol, which non existence therefore 'exists' out there too. Including the highest tier Who want wuji, the old ones who want in to dictate their own version of life,realities that never were, ect. Then we have
--- Quote ---For a non-point or "extended" source of light, the shadow is divided into the umbra, penumbra and antumbra. The wider the light source, the more blurred the shadow becomes. If two penumbras overlap, the shadows appear to attract and merge. This is known as the Shadow Blister Effect.
--- End quote ---
This appears to be the effect Outsiders/shadows use to manifest in reality.. fearbringer bears a striking functionality to the scarecrow who ate parts of Molly's soul and the Cloth Molly left from Harry's murder. His amalgamation, like hwwbh's is the result of the Blister effect in Mirroring reality. (Blamps blister a living human precisely then move through them into reality fyi, also Summer vs Winter Queens, connects here to my theory Winter 'came' inside' from previously being the power of ice giant outsiders, Lucifer to TWC, and towards why Blampires gain strength so fast, they are true immortals that feed directly on taking life, one small darkhallow at a time, ect) anyway...



--- Quote ---Though I will argue against the view of Marcone.  Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power.  She wants balance.  She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more.  Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.
--- End quote ---
Then why do we need Titania's failsafe?


--- Quote ---I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman.  At all.  Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.  With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone.  Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft.  He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.
--- End quote ---
He's maimed and even killed criminal's though. everybody has a line to 'othering' someone outside their monkey sphere after all. Marcone see's the practicality of having the control the same way the Punisher see's the practicality of killing them off entirely. Doesn't change the initial spark, just how they choose to deal with it. Like fear becoming anger OR terror.


--- Quote ---In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker.
--- End quote ---
Actually his Hooker is Ms Beckett.. and the Jury is gonna be out on that one for now.
--- Quote ---  He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit.  Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes.  There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.
--- End quote ---
Not fair when I don't know any of Moriarty's backstory ;p I'll continue the Punisher/batman comparison though, because both had their families murdered before them, same motive. Bruce, a kid, drew in high minded ideals and became a vigilante that's known for being tough as shit, having the biggest gadgets, and striking fear into the hearts criminals. The punisher can replace gadget's with guns and all stay accurate their, same starborn lol. fyi... you know Harry IS batman right? PG was a joke on batman and sleepy hallow, Harry was the detective without fear archetype there vs the master of fear scarecrow/fearbringer. Had Darby Crane to parallel Jonathan Crane, the scarecrow and Ichabod Crane who fought off a pumpkin headed horsemen, paralleling the scarecrow acting as the beast of burden/horse to the walker fearbringer, as a 'horseman'... Jim enjoy's his hidden jokes... just wonder what I've still missed lol.

*theories so big and expansive I wouldn't know where to start and would talk myself into so many circles i'd start a category 2 twister lol.

Shift8:

--- Quote from: DonBugen on September 24, 2017, 04:17:17 PM ---Hey, Shift8!  Good point on the “taking off years of a person’s life” thing; I didn’t think, but I’m sure a person would be able to recover in much the way that Harry recovers after using Soulfire a lot – time, soul-fulfilling activities, life.  Otherwise, there’d be no way that Justine could have recovered the way she did.

Your question really is a good philosophical one – the moral approach that is to be taken with vampires, and whether extermination of them is something which can be considered.  I find this discussion works best if I think less of this being a moral issue, and more of it being an issue between finding neutrality between two different sapient races.  The moral road being that it is immoral to wipe out a species that is both sentient (self aware) and sapient (capable of reason and logical thinking) unless there is no other option.

(To your question about how something can be lacking free will but be sentient, I think that Jim addresses that in Cold Case.  I spoilered’ it because not everyone might have read it.)
(click to show/hide)We know from Cold Days that the Winter Lady does not have free will and choice; she must act within her nature.  Cold Case, told from Molly’s perspective as the Winter Lady, shows Molly thinking, reasoning, and planning.  She chooses, for example, to dress frumpy and warmly in the beginning, even though she doesn’t need to, in order to slightly defy Mab.  But we see throughout the story that whenever she tries doing something that does not fit within the Winter Lady’s jurisdiction, that her body overrides her will and reacts in a different way.  She doesn’t initially mean to be super mysterious and flirt constantly with Ramirez, but that’s exactly what happens when she tries to be straightforward and plain in speech with him.
The question is, can a peace treaty be really, honestly, lastingly held between two separate species of being, when one species is the only food that the other species can eat?  And can it be held in such a way that the one species is not abusing the other?

Total war to eradicate the species would only be justified if such a peace could not be kept.  If this was, say, Humans vs. Klingons, then it would be immoral to completely wipe out the Klingon race simply because of their extreme violence; they have a different society and structure, but it should be possible to coexist.  They’ve coexisted for millions of years separate; no reason why they can’t continue.
 to live.

But the Vampire cannot separate himself from mankind; he must be a predator to survive, and he only has one food:  us.  Furthermore, they MUST kill.  Reds and Whites start their life WITH a fatal feeding; black court MUST kill a mortal to create a new blampire.  It’s sort of difficult to maintain a peace with a race if “Oh yeah, we have to kill one of you guys every time we reproduce” happens.  And as we clearly see in First Lord’s Fury, an existence without reproduction is nothing but a slow death.

So, is it morally superior to say that the Whites can stay, but the Reds should go?  I don’t know.  Other than Thomas, we really haven’t seen any “good” white court vampires.  They’ve been just as vicious, bloodthirsty, and dangerous as the Reds, but in a subtler way.  I personally don’t think that the serial rapist is morally better than the serial killer.

If Jim Butcher wrote the Dresden Files with a sympathetic red court vampire – say, Thomas stayed a minor character and never grew from where he was portrayed in Grave Peril – and Susan was turned but fought against her nature – would we still say that the Reds are monsters and need to be put down?  Because in the Dresden Files, the white court is portrayed as the villain just as much as the red court is.

Honestly, if we’re just looking at the numbers, they ALL should go.  There’s no capable way of having a lasting peace treaty between them all; the only thing that’s worked so far is keeping ‘the cattle’ ignorant of their presence while wizards look the other way.  Every single White and Red Court vampire is a murderer, and will murder again.  I agree with Eb – no matter how nice they seem now, their hunger takes control again.  And they can’t live separate from humanity.  There is no way for this species to coexist with humanity, and if given the opportunity, they will grow and spread and dominate and completely force the world to submit.

--

Jonas – I understand some of what you were saying now – if I understand, you were drawing parallels to the sins of lust, gluttony, sloth, pride, wrath, greed, and envy with the four horsemen – famine, pestilence, war, and death, and drawing further parallels between lust, famine, and others to the Buddhist interpretation of desire.  That does make a lot of sense, and is pretty deep.  Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.

Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence.  That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.

Though I will argue against the view of Marcone.  Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power.  She wants balance.  She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more.  Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.

I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman.  At all.  Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.  With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone.  Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft.  He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.

In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker.  He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit.  Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes.  There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.

--- End quote ---

I agree with alot of this, but Im gonna hit on the bit where we diverge...but thats more interesting :)

I disagree about wiping out a race not being justified simply due to its nature. Im not a star treck expert but from what I have seen of the klingon they are morally capable, if necessarily inclined.

Vampires of the type we are discussing, are like Orcs. Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.

Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.

It is incorrect to attach the same sort of genocide ethic we attach to humans to a species that is incapable of moral decision making in the same way as humans do. You cannot change the equation and expect the same answer, so to speak.

When I human commits murder, most people would considering justified to kill that person under most circumstances. And all Orcs or Red/Black Vampires are murders by nature. They are incapable of treating other moral creatures with the necessary respect, and therefore must be annihilated.

forumghost:

--- Quote from: Shift8 on September 25, 2017, 01:47:28 AM ---I agree with alot of this, but Im gonna hit on the bit where we diverge...but thats more interesting :)

I disagree about wiping out a race not being justified simply due to its nature. Im not a star treck expert but from what I have seen of the klingon they are morally capable, if necessarily inclined.

Vampires of the type we are discussing, are like Orcs. Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.

Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.

It is incorrect to attach the same sort of genocide ethic we attach to humans to a species that is incapable of moral decision making in the same way as humans do. You cannot change the equation and expect the same answer, so to speak.

When I human commits murder, most people would considering justified to kill that person under most circumstances. And all Orcs or Red/Black Vampires are murders by nature. They are incapable of treating other moral creatures with the necessary respect, and therefore must be annihilated.

--- End quote ---

Pretty much. Ramps and Blamps are species that can only propagate via murder, and only thrive through slavery and addiction.

Or to put it another way "This is not war. This is pest control"

DonBugen:

--- Quote ---Pretty much. Ramps and Blamps are species that can only propagate via murder, and only thrive through slavery and addiction.
--- End quote ---
And Whamps, too.  Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding.  Every one.


--- Quote --- Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.

Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.
--- End quote ---
In a world of many, many different species of intelligent beings, that's a very human-centric morality.  There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind?  So, flipside - if one day we learned that plants are sentient and sapient, but humankind must consume either plant matter or animals which consume plant matter in order to survive, does that mean that it's only just for humankind to be wiped out?

I'm not arguing that the vampires aren't extremely dangerous and should not be wiped out.  I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed.  All thinking beings have value and worth - call it a soul, call it intelligence - and it is a great tragedy to end that line.

Remember Waldo Butters with Dresden at the library in Dead Beat.  Dresden says that Liverspots was a complete monster.  Butters says yeah... but he was still a person.

I'm going to steal whole-cloth an argument made by some guy on Reddit a year ago, because I know little of Tolkein's orcs.

--- Quote ---Tolkien included scenes in The Lord of the Rings where Orcs displayed not-so-evil qualities such as loyalty, friendship, and even a rebellious attitude toward Sauron. They were soldiers enslaved to evil but not because they were born to evil. Tolkien went to great lengths to rationalize how the Orcs could be the foot-soldiers of dark lords and would-be dark lords, essentially deciding that their free wills had been constrained by the more powerful wills of their masters.
When left to themselves the Orcs were still capable of organizing themselves into societies in Tolkien's fiction, but though they didn't get along with Dwarves, Elves, or Men there were many instances where the latter did not get along with each other, either, especially among Men.
So did Tolkien really depict the Orcs as being more evil than Men or did he merely depict how the major characters in the story viewed the Orcs? One of the most notable scenes in the story is that where Aragorn shows mercy to the Orcs besieging the Hornburg, warning them to flee before they are destroyed. Should he really have done that if he felt the Orcs were utterly evil and unredeemable?
--- End quote ---

You call the orcs completely evil, and that killing them is no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream.  Welll, the Whites believe that the kine are nothing but dumb beasts, incapable of real intelligence and being, and that killing them is also no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream.  Who's right?  You, for painting them as nothing but monsters?  Them, for painting us as nothing but cattle?  In the Dresden Files, mankind is just one of many thinking beings, and you can't just base your morality on "what hurts homo sapiens the most?" 

That's why I say that it's immoral to end a species unless there's no other choice.

jonas:

--- Quote ---And Whamps, too.  Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding.  Every one.

--- End quote ---
Actually the bigfoot trilogy refutes this fact, he survived because he had a larger gas tank for her to syphon... makes me wonder if her nature is on some level different, because her demon wasn't born through taking away anothers choice of life. Which is the main factor for changing both Reds and Whamps, the Blamps idk when the change happens or why, but they always kill... that's actually a thematically accurate thing. Whamps and Ramps are 'born' through death, which supplies the creation energy. Blamps take the creation energy with every life though, they aren't 'set' in stone... perhaps Walking conjunctions themselves even.

--- Quote ---There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind?
--- End quote ---
From the Trumpet voice I take it was because they were every one of them murderers who continued to hurt and willfully commit acts towards others, as a whole species.
*course if they really did come from the 7 sins TWG would have a bone to pick here wouldn't he?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page