How bad a thing can a good person do?

[Deleted member 113259]

I don't think it's vigilantism so much as her just being traumatized. She got something against him, she kills him. Unless her whole thing is that she's an envoy of justice or something.

That's more understandable, but it's still a very evil action.

I don't think it's vigilantism so much as her just being traumatized. She got something against him, she kills him. Unless her whole thing is that she's an envoy of justice or something.
(this part is not related to the post I quoted. Just some statement from me.)
And there is no good or evil.
Oh, you think sacrificing babies is evil? Some civilizations thousands of years ago think that it's the norm.
Everything is subjective. To blatantly say that something (even murder) is evil is arrogant and prideful. We get it, your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.
Oh the other hand, said civilizations are not around today anymore. Seems like our set of morals has been proven to be better than the other

Even if everything was subjective, that would include what I said.

 

[nowme_cres]

ran a cult, brainwashed children into being soldiers) w

literally me

 

[MajorKerina]

This evokes a deep space nine episode for me, one of my favorites. The Duet. That was an incredible episode about skirting the line between good and evil. That series allowed good characters to do bad things but consequences followed. In the case of that episode the ending was tragically beautiful because we found out so much about the characters involved. A heroic character would ultimately decline the opportunity to get revenge. So it depends on whether the character can still be heroic or you want there to be that dark thread that remains.

 

[NitroxDarks]

I'll quote big daddy NF, 'even good people are great at making bad decisions'.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

Good people do the worst things sometimes. (oh look me so deep uwu)

 

[georgelee5786]

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. One could argue the man got his due

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

It's thoughtless because you made your opinion absolute with no addendums nor accounting for any variables. It is quite obvious that that is why I was stating your opinion was thoughtless. It can be inferred from my selection of reasons I pointed, so I am pretty sure your question was pointless.
And yeah, your opinion is controversial because of its utter absoluteness. And I will of course call its lack of thought.

This is so black and white, I can almost feel the ink dribbling down my eyes and the white-out running down my mouth. Don't really have anything to say to that though. Everything is clear-cut to you, so unless I want to engage in a debate differing from the one on "are they thoughtless or not", I'll hold off debating your opinions.

Well, ok. Let's go through my thought process.
I thought about:

• The heroine's pov, motives, and most importantly actions
• The victim's pov, past action vs their current actions (they no longer commit the past crime)
• The victim's family pov
• I put myself in all their places (briefly)
• I looked to an objective code of ethics, one that has perfect standards, instead of using my own myopic views of morality. Because I recognize that applying my morals would be unjust. (The limitation here is my understanding of the standards)
• I evaluated the known situation to the high standards, which is where I formed my judgements.

So what else could I do to be more thoughtful?
I suppose i could add more fluff to my comment, (qualifications, what if, etc) but i wanted to get straight to the point.

 

[Bartun]

This kind of thing always makes me wonder. One thing is holding others accountable for their deeds be right or wrong, and another completely different thing is to kill someone for some perceived wrong. What gives them the right? Isn't virtue signaling, judging, and summarily executing others just as evil as whatever the wrongdoer might have done?

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Well, ok. Let's go through my thought process.
I thought about:

• The heroine's pov, motives, and most importantly actions
• The victim's pov, past action vs their current actions (they no longer commit the past crime)
• The victim's family pov
• I put myself in all their places (briefly)
• I looked to an objective code of ethics, one that has perfect standards, instead of using my own myopic views of morality. Because I recognize that applying my morals would be unjust. (The limitation here is my understanding of the standards)
• I evaluated the known situation to the high standards, which is where I formed my judgements.

So what else could I do to be more thoughtful?
I suppose i could add more fluff to my comment, (qualifications, what if, etc) but i wanted to get straight to the point.

The issue I have is that it is thoughtless to make any judgement at this point. Perhaps a leaning either way would be fine, but I would have (and did in my first comment on the thread) postponed the judgement until I had more info. If you think of all the possibilities and stuff that the person left out to get such a concise gist of the situation, then any judgement is foolhardy. Though, from how black and white your views seem to be, that will not matter to you, no matter the qualifier.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

The issue I have is that it is thoughtless to make any judgement at this point. Perhaps a leaning either way would be fine, but I would have (and did in my first comment on the thread) postponed the judgement until I had more info. If you think of all the possibilities and stuff that the person left out to get such a concise gist of the situation, then any judgement is foolhardy. Though, from how black and white your views seem to be, that will not matter to you, no matter the qualifier.

Ok, so how much info would be enough for you to be comfortable making a judgement?
I do not think the OP is withholding important information, small details shouldn't hold a lot of sway. What he gave is what we get and he's asking for opinions on the situation.

Edit: my intention is not to bully you, but since you called me out here I am

 

[TheEldritchGod]

I was thinking of having my characters engage in a little bit of detour where one of the heroines, who has been kind and loving until that point, meets a man from her past. He has a family and seems like a nice person but beforehand he'd done some nasty things (ran a cult, brainwashed children into being soldiers) which has haunted her. So she murders him. She doesn't care whether he's a different person now (in fact, I'd present him as reformed but she simply doesn't believe it). Nor does she have any concern for what this may do to his family. She just feels the bastard evaded justice and takes it upon herself to correct matters.

Would that be going too far? Could a character still be good after that? Or could readers accept she's good, but even a good person has their limits?

Sigh.

Good-Evil (Objective Morality)
Right-Wrong (Subjective Morality)
Legal-Crime (Social Morality)
Positive-Negative (Outcome Morality)

Expand your morality to contain more than one axis.

Constructive-Destructive
Care-Apathy
Positive-Negative

Furthermore, to understand your reader's reaction, expand your emotions to include more than one axis as well.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

The issue I have is that it is thoughtless to make any judgement at this point. Perhaps a leaning either way would be fine, but I would have (and did in my first comment on the thread) postponed the judgement until I had more info. If you think of all the possibilities and stuff that the person left out to get such a concise gist of the situation, then any judgement is foolhardy. Though, from how black and white your views seem to be, that will not matter to you, no matter the qualifier.

The entire point of the thread is to judge. If the issue is the amount of information we have, take it up with the racoon.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

And there is no good or evil.

Wrong.

Oh, you think sacrificing babies is evil?

Yes.

Some civilizations thousands of years ago think that it's the norm.

Wrong then. Wrong now.

Everything is subjective.

Wrong. Or are you claiming there is no objective reality? if you are making that claim, you are claiming I don't exist when you don't see me. This sort of sophistic narcissism is a memetic plague.

To blatantly say that something (even murder) is evil is arrogant and prideful.

Nope. And by your own argument, I'm right because I say I am. So subjectively I'm right, Objectively I'm right. Subjectively you are right, but objectively you are wrong. Look at the scoreboard.

We get it, your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.

No. Again, there are four different Major Axis of morality and YOU are mixing them up. You are conflating objective, Subjective, Social and Outcome morality as ONE FORM OF MORALITY because you seem to think NOTHING IS REAL.

And, You stated, "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE". Therefore, THERE IS NO CONCRETE REALITY. That computer you type on is nothing but butterflies and kittens. Please, SEND ME A PIC.

Oh the other hand, said civilizations are not around today anymore. Seems like our set of morals has been proven to be better than the other

UGH. So If I SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD I'M MORE MORAL?
My Morality survived, after all.

Keanu Christ. Just... Grow Up. Seriously. Your 10th Grade Edgy Philosophy is tiresome. And it IS Tenth Grade Edgy because I choose to PERCEIVE it that way. Nothing you can say or do to argue your point will work BECAUSE I'LL JUST YELL LOUDER!!!

Is that really a world you want to live in? Really?
You want a world where the craziest person wins?
Because that is the only place what you "Think" is real leads.

THINGS EXIST, ERGO THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALTY.

Yes, we cannot fully understand TRUE objective reality, but we can get damn close. The answer is not to say, "FUCK IT! I IDENTIFY SEXUALLY AS A BUILDING", but to accept we are flawed and sometimes get things wrong. It is better to try and get it right and get as close to objective truth as possible, then to just give up and say it doesn't matter.

BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

 

[Cipiteca396]

The issue I have is that it is thoughtless to make any judgement at this point. Perhaps a leaning either way would be fine, but I would have (and did in my first comment on the thread) postponed the judgement until I had more info. If you think of all the possibilities and stuff that the person left out to get such a concise gist of the situation, then any judgement is foolhardy. Though, from how black and white your views seem to be, that will not matter to you, no matter the qualifier.

Keep in mind that the situation is entirely made up. There is NO additional information. There are no possibilities. Nobody is dying, and nobody is being punished (or not) for that death. You have all of the information laid out in front of you, as plain as day. You've refused to judge a fictional character for a fictional action, but you've judged real people for choosing to answer it.

I know first hand how easy it is to get caught up in arguments, but this isn't the hill you wanna die on.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Keep in mind that the situation is entirely made up. There is NO additional information. There are no possibilities. Nobody is dying, and nobody is being punished (or not) for that death. You have all of the information laid out in front of you, as plain as day. You've refused to judge a fictional character for a fictional action, but you've judged real people for choosing to answer it.

I know first hand how easy it is to get caught up in arguments, but this isn't the hill you wanna die on.

based.
@Cipiteca396 ayo what's with the sad react?

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Here's the problem...

If every living thing in the universe died, would the universe still exist?

Truthfully, we don't know. If you subscribe to M-theory then the answer is, No. The anthro principle indicates that the universe only exists because it is perceived. And if you think it is No, then we have nothing to discuss.

If you say, "yes", then you believe in Objective reality.

Now then. What is objective morality?
Well, it would be that the best objective outcome of an event would be the outcome we should try to achieve.
What is it? Fucked if I know.
However, if you believe there is an objective universe, then there is, OBJECTIVELY, a "BEST OUTCOME". How do we know what it is? I dunno. How do we measure it? I dunno. What are the very things we use to measure it? DO I LOOK LIKE GOD?

...

Well, YES, but I'm stuck in the universe with you, so I can't help.

But if you could freeze time, step out of reality, examine every quark, every photon, every aspect of everything, convert it into math, then you could calculate the best outcome, given enough time.

So while we have no idea what the BEST OUTCOME is, it must exist. Why? Well, let me give you an example:

We have yet to detect a single graviton.

Did you know that? That gravity stuff keeping you stuck to the planet? We have no idea what the fuck it actually is. We cannot actually detect gravity DIRECTLY. In fact, there are theories that state maybe gravity doesn't exist at all, it is just an emergent property. (it'd certainly simplify things). But here's the thing, I THINK Gravity exists.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm fairly sure I'm not about to float away.

...

Yup. Still here.

However, we can predict gravity. We can chart it, measure the effects it has on things, and we know a whole lot about gravity, indirectly, but we have yet to actually KNOW what gravity is.

Objective Morality is like that.

Killing babies is bad. How do I know? I've measured a whole bunch of baby murders and when I looked at the outcomes, I came to the conclusion that, ya know, normally, this isn't a good thing. In the cases where baby murder was okay, well, there were extenuating circumstances.

I'm fairly certain that there are a few things I can put on my list of, "I think in an objective universe, I feel confidant that, without knowing anything else, I can default to THIS IS FUCKED UP."

Can I say, 100% that baby murder is evil? No. I also can't 100% say you exist and aren't an AI sent to drive me fuckin' insane when I should be writing my book. But I am fairly sure you exist.

So when I look at "Objective Morality", yes, it's a bit of a consensus. Just like most people agree gravity is real, There is most likely a BEST OUTCOME. And there are some general guide lines we can infer from what we see to say, "You know, if Objective Morality exists, and it must, because there is an Objective Universe, then we can most likely make some educated guesses as to what the general guidelines should be to at least get in the Ballpark of "Good" and avoid "Evil"

And When I look at the piles of dead babies in these trashcans, I find myself going, "Yeah, I'm gonna go with, Murdering all these babies was evil. Especially when I made their mothers watch."

But you know, YOU HAVE TO HAVE those DOUBLE BLIND TESTS. You know what I'm saying?

Spoiler: My Bad

And by double-blind I mean I blinded both the baby and the mother before I tossed the little rugrat in a woodchipper.

Would that be going too far?

Yes.

Could a character still be good after that?

Depends. Does she then turn herself in to the local authorities for judgment? If she does not, she is just as bad as the person she killed. If she does, then she understands her actions were Objectively Wrong, Subjectively Right, and willing to submit to Social Morality in order to get opinions from others to determine what punishment she deserves.

If she covers it up, she denies all the other victims justice.

And I would like to Quote, "She just feels the bastard evaded justice and takes it upon herself to correct matters."
So if she does not turn herself in, she is a hypocrite. if you DESERVE DEATH FOR EVADING JUSTICE, and then you "EVADE JUSTICE" Guess what, MudderFudder?

Time to take out my .308 and canoe your cranium from another zip code.

Goose... Gander... You know the drill.

Or could readers accept she's good, but even a good person has their limits?

Sure. People are gullible. I'm sure you can convince them she's good.
I wouldn't, but hey, that's just me. I'm a clear thinker and don't usually get caught up in emotional judgment. And if I do, I try to defer to the judgment of other parties to make sure I'm not fuckin' up.

 

[Desustar]

@TheEldritchGod no, universe does not exist until we perceive it. and yeah, good and evil is a social construct, not something real.
put yourself in the character's position and do what you think she would do. the character is ultimately left to the reader's judgement.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Keep in mind that the situation is entirely made up. There is NO additional information. There are no possibilities. Nobody is dying, and nobody is being punished (or not) for that death. You have all of the information laid out in front of you, as plain as day. You've refused to judge a fictional character for a fictional action, but you've judged real people for choosing to answer it.

I know first hand how easy it is to get caught up in arguments, but this isn't the hill you wanna die on.

Oh, this is totally the hill I want to die on. I will stay by these principles till I die; these principles being that I will not judge others until I understand because otherwise it is unfairness of the highest order. And to say that this is just a fantasy situation, when everyone else is just as into it as I am and they are viewing it with how their opinion applies to real life too (because fantasy is meant to have a connection to real-life situations with real-life morals) is one, a non-sequitur which doesn't defend your argument even if you think it does, and two, kind of blind for not analyzing the ones you agree with. And of course I'll judge these real people because I actually have an extensive set of understanding of the situation and there are not too many variables that have not been accounted for, unlike for the fictional character. Again, this a straw man fallacy of yours that does not actually contribute to the argument.

I do not have all the information in front of me. I have already laid out quite a bit of missing information in my earlier comments, and I have refused to judge them because that is how I would apply it to a real-world situation.
However, I will reiterate what is missing:
1. What is the extent of his actions? We know that he ran a cult and brainwashed children into soldiers... what did the cult do? Were they cannibals? Blood sacrifices? Deposition of the local power structure for a bit? Did he take sexual advantage while head of said cult like most? Were the children forced to slaughter and under the rules of society, is he a serial killer or committer of genocide by proxy? And more.
2. She meets a man from her past and snaps. How are they connected? Is she a victim? It paints a certain picture, no? If she is a victim, then she could be so freakin' traumatized that society would give her a pass, legally, because of PTSD or something similar. Mental health allowance, while not necessarily common in medieval times, is an important rule now. We don't know the state of her mental health.
3. Nor do we understand the legal implications of his crimes, and what level of vigilantism is permitted in this society.
4. And, if none of this was enough, we don't even know what her connections are to the government. What if it's her job? She could be an enforcer or a member of a ruling religion, and thus in charge of dealing out justice.

Are you starting to see just how little is actually evident? How many possibilities and qualifiers could be the case?

And I would like to point that not once have I even stated my personal beliefs on vigilantism and the evilness of her actions. Depending on the context, the girl could totally be in the wrong. And yet we don't know, because we have been given a very basic gist.

 

[APieceOfRock]

I identify as a building block. I still think that everything (especially morals) is subjective. There are just some that work better (or best) like you said.

Here's the problem...

If every living thing in the universe died, would the universe still exist?

Truthfully, we don't know. If you subscribe to M-theory then the answer is, No. The anthro principle indicates that the universe only exists because it is perceived. And if you think it is No, then we have nothing to discuss.

If you say, "yes", then you believe in Objective reality.

Now then. What is objective morality?
Well, it would be that the best objective outcome of an event would be the outcome we should try to achieve.
What is it? Fucked if I know.
However, if you believe there is an objective universe, then there is, OBJECTIVELY, a "BEST OUTCOME". How do we know what it is? I dunno. How do we measure it? I dunno. What are the very things we use to measure it? DO I LOOK LIKE GOD?

While I do get what you're saying, here's an official definition of "Objective" from a dictionary.
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind."
So yeah, as long as there are baby-eaters and psychopaths like me, morals aren't objective.
And even if there weren't, there will arise people that try to go against the norms.

Then again, I do agree with your "best outcome" argument. Just wanna say that no one should look at anything from a moral high ground. Seriously, just don't. Perhaps a better example would be: If you see a serial killer, do not call him evil. Call him disgusting. Call him a bastard that needs to be killed over and over again. You can hate his actions, you can hate his guts.
Tying back to the original thread: we don't know the values of that society. Many cultivation (or fantasy) novels treat killing as a normal thing. Why should it matter if someone's good or evil? Unless her whole thing is that she's an envoy of justice or something.

TL;DR: Nothing is wrong. Some things just work better than others.

@TheEldritchGod no, universe does not exist until we perceive it. and yeah, good and evil is a social construct, not something real.
put yourself in the character's position and do what you think she would do. the character is ultimately left to the reader's judgement.

1 - That's just a theory.
2 - It IS a social construct, so it IS real. They are subjective guidelines that lead our species past the time of murdering each other just because we can. While I do agree strongly with today's morals, to say that other sets of morals are wrong is just arrogant.

 

[Desustar]

1 - That's just a theory.

well, let me rephrase - universe is not defined until we measure it.

2 - It IS a social construct, so it IS real.

umm, real how? that's akin to saying that Jesus is real. which is just silly. right?