if there were a branch of white court that fed on good emotions, like comedy, and they were stand up comedians and clowns, would they be good guys?In the end they feed on other peoples life energy, they are vampires. They can not be good guys.
In the end they feed on other peoples life energy, they are vampires. They can not be good guys.All animals eat and that, most often, involves death.
All animals eat and that, most often, involves death.Sure but an intelligent creature that eats humans is usually seen as evil. An animal gets a pass because it is not intelligent enough to be considered truly evil.
Sure but an intelligent creature that eats humans is usually seen as evil. An animal gets a pass because it is not intelligent enough to be considered truly evil.Humans have entire industry setup where the unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals for food is done to save a few coins rather than making a little less profit but treating the animals ethically. Countries like america, germany, danmark are among the worst in the west (not that there aren’t exceptions in each place). One assumes the DF universe is the same as ours in that respect. This would make the categorisation of eating free ranged humans here and there as “evil” a bit rich. Of course, we’re not very logical animals and cognitive dissonance is a thing. :)
Humans have entire industry setup where the unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals for food is done to save a few coins rather than making a little less profit but treating the animals ethically. Countries like america, germany, danmark are among the worst in the west (not that there aren’t exceptions in each place). One assumes the DF universe is the same as ours in that respect. This would make the categorisation of eating free ranged humans here and there as “evil” a bit rich. Of course, we’re not very logical animals and cognitive dissonance is a thing. :)You're absolutely right. They're not evil for feeding, they're evil for feeding on us, and we have to stomp the bastards to the ground on general principle.
Humans have entire industry setup where the unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals for food is done to save a few coins rather than making a little less profit but treating the animals ethically. Countries like america, germany, danmark are among the worst in the west (not that there aren’t exceptions in each place). One assumes the DF universe is the same as ours in that respect. This would make the categorisation of eating free ranged humans here and there as “evil” a bit rich. Of course, we’re not very logical animals and cognitive dissonance is a thing. :)It is all very logical, it is about "Us" and "Them". To even consider cruelty to animals a thing you have to feel empathy for them, you have to include them in a group that includes you. Human history is partly about expanding the "Us" when civilization proceeds. We can hardly expect civilization to proceed if the humans in the next village are primarily seen as a good source of proteins.
I think you may have shifted the goal a bit. Your first statement seemed to be a sweeping characterisation of their objective place in that universe. Your follow up statement is now more a human endemic point of view.Not surprising because the word evil is all about emotion. It is about empathy and fear. Without emotions the word evil has no meaning.
Also, I’d point out that your supporting examples for your logic argument are direct appeals to emotion.
In my opinion, if examining the food chain logically, those higher on it eat those who are lower. There is no value judgement for choosing to live by eating. The value judgment only enters on how you do it and *that* is where empathy and sympathy live and only because we’ve evolved these systems likely as part of a species survival mechanism (as all mammals and many other species). The concept of “evil” itself is just a mirror back to these chemical reactions in our brains as our developed minds attempt to find patterns and meaning when these evolved mechanisms and our ability to interpret them exceeded the initial design. Hydrogen has no such hangups. :)But the word evil is about value judgements. You assign value to what is good and you judge evil what is threatening good.
Our first cat ate everything that came out of a tin and was labeled cat food. Our current cats only eat a few things and we have tried everything on the shelves. We humans here only eat free ranged meat but cats....
And, no judgement there. Personally, I think we’re captives to our chemical reactions and the emotions they cause combined with socialisation, circumstances, et cetera. I don’t even think we have free will as we think of it, but that’s another topic.
As for your neighbour, have you ever considered a pet tiger? I hear they have fearful symmetry. Our cat might help, too. She’s on an allergy diet for two months and her canned food’s main ingredient is potato peels so she’s craving meat. She now wakes me daily at 4.00, 4.30, 5.00 and so to loudly complain about the lack of chicken on her plate.
Evil need never appear in this argument. I love my dog but if she starts eating the neighbors I will put her down. It wouldn't make her evil, just dangerous.Depends on the neighbors. You might have different neighbors. We just labeled the neighbors evil so that makes the dog a servant of good.
To to OP, As long as they don't kill me, stand up comics can make me laugh all they want.Harry is just human. His moral compass is influenced by things like family and friends.
And JB(Harry)'s moral compass doesn't seem to have a true north. He's gonna put down Lara, because she eats people, and yet his brother gets invited to all his birthday parties. In a cheesy horror movie people would be yelling at the screen saying, "You'll be sorry."
Depends on the neighbors.You must have weird neighbors.
Harry is just human. His moral compass is influenced by things like family and friends.Yes, his brother is a murderer.
You must have weird neighbors.Yes, his brother is a murderer.Just the usual stuff asocial people do. Smoking outside when I want to open my windows and making too much noise when I want too sleep. I won’t send my cats to kill and eat him, it might poison my cats.
You are not supposed to agree with all Harry’s moral choices. It would make a boring book. But I can sympatise.(click to show/hide)
Just the usual stuff asocial people do. Smoking outside when I want to open my windows and making too much noise when I want too sleep. I won’t send my cats to kill and eat him, it might poison my cats.Cats can eat anything and survive. I have like nine hungry young kittens that can eat a whale. I can send them over to backup your cat.
You are not supposed to agree with all Harry’s moral choices. It would make a boring book. But I can sympatise.
I really don't care about Harry's moral choices. I just wouldn't want him for a neighbor.Unless someone broke into your house or jumped you on the way home from work. Now you'd absolutely love to have him around, eh?
I'm glad you have a proper appreciation for the welfare of your cat.
Unless someone broke into your house or jumped you on the way home from work. Now you'd absolutely love to have him around, eh?Nope, still don't want him as a neighbor. Where does the Brighter Future Society stand? Where Harry's boarding house once stood, does it not. His landlady and other neighbors had to flee for their lives because Harry lived in the basement. And the possibility of being attacked by fire is first brought up in Turn Coat.
Not surprising because the word evil is all about emotion. It is about empathy and fear. Without emotions the word evil has no meaning.But the word evil is about value judgements. You assign value to what is good and you judge evil what is threatening good.But *you* were the one who said it is all very logical. :o Are you a politician?
If you create too much distance the words good and evil become meaningless.Wot? I said it’s a combination of evolutionary biology, chemical reactions, and circumstances. I.E. a subjective experience only “real” like a sunset because of perspective (since the sun doesn’t actually set, it just spins and follows its orbital trajectory). Also, each perceiver’s perceptions are different, so, while a great deal of overlap exists because of shared biology, true understanding of another’s experience doesn’t quite exist and even shared broad concepts are wobbly. ;D But, objectively, none of it is actually how things are because things just *are* (or are not (what’s the sound of one boddisattva clapping? Om mani padme ho hum?)).
Our first cat ate everything that came out of a tin and was labeled cat food. Our current cats only eat a few things and we have tried everything on the shelves. We humans here only eat free ranged meat but cats....Have you tried tundra or carnilove cans? They’re pretty expensive, but very high quality. It’s funny what different cats will love. One of our cats shared breakfast with my husband every morning for years because she loved the little swedish style pancakes (plätter) he’d have with a spoon of jam and gladly finish anything sweet left on his dessert plate. Our cat now has no interest at all in his breakfast, but goes crazy for croissants if I buy one to coffee from the bakery downstairs and eats about a quarter of it. She’s also fond of camembert. She sticks her nose up at the cat food our previous cat used to love, too. She has a savoury tooth to the other’s sweet.
But *you* were the one who said it is all very logical. :o Are you a politician?Emotions are a product of human evolution. The moral positions can not be understood from a simple logical position because they are contradictory and lack simple logic but they are logical in the sense that they are a result of human emotions shaped by evolution. They make sense in that context even if they do not seem to make sense. There is logic in emotions.
Wot? I said it’s a combination of evolutionary biology, chemical reactions, and circumstances. I.E. a subjective experience only “real” like a sunset because of perspective (since the sun doesn’t actually set, it just spins and follows its orbital trajectory). Also, each perceiver’s perceptions are different, so, while a great deal of overlap exists because of shared biology, true understanding of another’s experience doesn’t quite exist and even shared broad concepts are wobbly. ;D But, objectively, none of it is actually how things are because things just *are* (or are not (what’s the sound of one boddisattva clapping? Om mani padme ho hum?)).Each of us builds a description of reality inside his head. Some of those theories just work better.
On that note, I think we may be talking past one another anyway. This format doesn’t make it easier.Probably true.
Have you tried tundra or carnilove cans? They’re pretty expensive, but very high quality. It’s funny what different cats will love. One of our cats shared breakfast with my husband every morning for years because she loved the little swedish style pancakes (plätter) he’d have with a spoon of jam and gladly finish anything sweet left on his dessert plate. Our cat now has no interest at all in his breakfast, but goes crazy for croissants if I buy one to coffee from the bakery downstairs and eats about a quarter of it. She’s also fond of camembert. She sticks her nose up at the cat food our previous cat used to love, too. She has a savoury tooth to the other’s sweet.Never tried those, I would have to order them online.
There is logic in emotions.If you change that to predictability or pattern, then I’ll agree completely. An obvious example is taken from the headlines; fear allows for control. Get people scared and a certain percentage will go along with anything. Bypassing reason by stirring emotions is a predictable and easily accessible form of control currently being used to great effect. Various studies have shown this and it’s predictability has been weaponised.
Never tried those, I would have to order them online.We order our cat’s food online as the prices are much lower than buying off the shelf and, if you spend 500kr on the site we use, the shipping is free.
If you change that to predictability or pattern, then I’ll agree completely. An obvious example is taken from the headlines; fear allows for control. Get people scared and a certain percentage will go along with anything. Bypassing reason by stirring emotions is a predictable and easily accessible form of control currently being used to great effect. Various studies have shown this and it’s predictability has been weaponised.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEPkIeEaxT8
I’d say that logic steps can be created to exploit these things, but the fear et al aren’t, in themselves, logical, just predictable.
In summation, those pesky vampires aren’t, by necessity, bad guys or whatever you said, for eating. In fact, it might be unethical to not allow them to eat at all. I think the standard of judgement would be in the details of the treatment of their food sources, thus full circle to my initial comment paralleling the human relationship with other animals.
Now, we ought to co-author a paper for a philosophy journal exploring the ethics of refusing vampires food.
We order our cat’s food online as the prices are much lower than buying off the shelf and, if you spend 500kr on the site we use, the shipping is free.
I've spoilered this because I'm really talking to myself.This truly begs the question of Harry's ethical position vis a vis the Reds, upon who he committed genocide. As a sentient being being eaten isn't really on my agenda, and anything that tries, will pay if I can arrange it. In a real sense evil is meaningless in that context.
Harry's world has a very Christian ethic, evidenced by this passage from the fight at the pyramid at Chichen ItzaObviously God has a point of view, the Red's were evil, and they had to pay when the check was presented.But, all characters in the books have a point of view. Each one is just expressing their nature or desires through thought and action (or inaction). To say that, because one of the faeries or magic beings proclaimed something makes it the dominant viewpoint might be going a bit far. Mab takes plenty of action, judges and so in the books. It doesn't follow that the world they live in therefore has a Mab ethic. Neither does it follow that it has a christian ethic because of the pronouncements of those characters. It only demonstrates their particular point of view.
The difference between Thomas and Lara is that Thomas cares and struggles against what he is. It's a narrow hair and JB splits it.I'd say there is no difference in the end. And, why would one struggle against being who they are? That's a common theme in literature to be certain, but, in practice, it's just self-torture. And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.
I had three lovely cats and they drove me crazy in a very fun way. I miss them.Aww. We lost two cats within a month of each other a few years ago. It was really terrible. You ever think about getting a new kitty?
It's a good question about the genocide. You should start a discussion about the ethicalness (is that a word?) of said action.I think not. There is no real ethical question. It a riff off the idea of the environmental costs of killing off apex predators. They died for the turtlenecks. And frankly I liked the vamps better.
But, all characters in the books have a point of view. Each one is just expressing their nature or desires through thought and action (or inaction). To say that, because one of the faeries or magic beings proclaimed something makes it the dominant viewpoint might be going a bit far.In the Dresdenverse they seem to have a pretty dominant position but ?shrug/?
I'd say there is no difference in the end. And, why would one struggle against being who they are? That's a common theme in literature to be certain, but, in practice, it's just self-torture. And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.You pretty much shut off cruelty didn't you? It falls on the same line as evil.
You pretty much shut off cruelty didn't you?I don't understand what you're asking here. Could you rephrase it or elaborate, please?
I've been saying that there is no such thing as evil, good, bad, or otherwise *objectively* for a bit now and even said I don't think free will as we typically think of it even exists. :D
And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.This is true in the real world, it isn't true in the Dresdenverse. In the real world morals are a social construct, if that is true then cruelty lies on the same line as evil as a social convention. So if society imposes a framework that we have to live within, it can't be cruelty within that context. That may change over time. IMO. YMMV.
The red court is an infection. The infected can actually do two things. They can remember who they are and try to live with it and protect the rest of humanity against this infection.And thus we go full circle.
The difference between Thomas and Lara is that Thomas cares and struggles against what he is. It's a narrow hair and JB splits it.Putting that aside. I personally don't care how the Reds might see me. I see them as apex predators. But a wolf attacks the herd at it peril. JB brings in good and evil. I don't need it. Being a narcissist it's all about me. I could kill off the Reds with absolutely no tugs on what little conscience I possess. In the same way I would kill a Black Widow. If they didn't want to die they should have chosen other victims. Like cows.
I personally don't care how the Reds might see me. I see them as apex predators. But a wolf attacks the herd at it peril. JB brings in good and evil. I don't need it. Being a narcissist it's all about me. I could kill off the Reds with absolutely no tugs on what little conscience I possess. In the same way I would kill a Black Widow. If they didn't want to die they should have chosen other victims. Like cows.You nailed it. While I don't necessarily see them as evil, I'd kill any vamp that attacks me, or that I see attacking other humans and I'd be the good guy. Its considered taking care of my fellow humans and protecting my own self interest. Again, its the "us and them" philosophy. We do the same to cannibals and no one calls us the bad guys for it. Just because they can only eat humans doesn't mean that we should allow them to do it.
I still liked them better as antagonists. The Fomor(or whatever) leave me unexcited. Turtlenecks. I had bad flashbacks to 60's fashion nightmares.
In summation, those pesky vampires aren’t, by necessity, bad guys or whatever you said, for eating. In fact, it might be unethical to not allow them to eat at all. I think the standard of judgement would be in the details of the treatment of their food sources, thus full circle to my initial comment paralleling the human relationship with other animals.