(no subject)

[the_rck]

I seem to have come up with a notion that Scott likes quite a bit. When he and I were watching Trigun (he for the first time and I for the second), I commented that I found the main character's obsessive desire not to kill occasionally frustrating rather than admirable and that I didn't think that the series dealt adequately with the central problem of the series-- The fact that in the end the main character could either hold to his ethics and refuse to kill and so allow others to die or let go of his ethics and kill to save lives. The main character kills once but only resolves never to let it happen again; he doesn't think about whether or not there are times he can't keep all of his ethics and has to choose which to uphold.

I called this "the Vordarian Point," pulling a reference out of Bujold's Barrayar. It's, in my view, the point at which, ethically, a person needs to choose between doing something personally terrible and allowing something more largely terrible. I argue that, by refusing to compromise personal ethics, the individual in question accepts a degree of responsibility for the eventual outcome whatever it may be even if the individual's not technically responsible for any of it. A sort of "You could have stopped this, but you didn't like the price. You may not have actually done it, but you didn't do everything you could to stop it either."

I don't think that a Vordarian Point should ever be easy for the person making the decision. Even if they find only one option acceptable, they should know that the choice exists and what the costs are either way. I don't see it exactly as an ends justify the means sort of attitude, but it has something in that direction. Ends do not always justify means; in fact, I suspect that they seldom do. Distaste for the means, however, at least in my opinion, does not always justify turning away from them.

Comments

Sounds familiar

[ogham.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of conversations I used to have about some Green party members about pacifism. It was frustrating because they didn't want to engage in thought experiments about the logical conclusion of the philosophy would take them. Not that I'm sure that having flexible moral guidelines is really any better than hard and fast rules- you still have to accept the consequences for your actions either way.

Re: Sounds familiar

[the_rck]

The whole accepting the consequences thing is where I felt the hero in Trigun fell down. He wanted desperately to save all lives, but because he refused to use lethal force in fighting people whose only purpose was to make him use lethal force, hundreds of people died. It was a victory in terms of sticking to his ethical position that he couldn't kill, but...

I'm not against pacificism for people who've really thought it through; I just don't think I could do it. I find that, for any ethical/moral position I take, I can conceive of situations (the vast majority wildly unlikely) that might demand that I chose between that position and others I hold.

I guess my question is what do you do when you reach a point where the situation requires a choice between two ideals you value? Either way, you lose one. (In Trigun, the character never seemed to actually think about the choices he was making. It peeved me.)

Re: Sounds familiar

[ogham.livejournal.com]

I'm not against pacificism for people who've really thought it through; I just don't think I could do it. I find that, for any ethical/moral position I take, I can conceive of situations (the vast majority wildly unlikely) that might demand that I chose between that position and others I hold.

Pacifism dosen't really bother me that much either (acutally most 'isms' dont' bother me too much, as long as the holder of the belief has thought it out and isn't aggressively proselytizing), it was that people didn't want to think of the extreme and unlikely circumstances that might force them to question the belief.

As for what to do when two values conflict? I don't know. By definition, you're screwed either way, and at best you're going to have a lot of soul searching to do when it's over. Personally, I try to hold to my most of my beliefs in a conditional sort of way, which could conceivably ease my way through a vodarian point, should I ever encounter one, but creates other problems insofar as I'm standing on shakier ground most of the time and can be rather more prone to equivocation.

Re: Sounds familiar

[the_rck]

Well, I'm sure that thinking things through is fairly uncomfortable. Most of us like the idea that certainty's possible, and part of that is the notion that some things are always right or always wrong. You can see people trying to expand both categories so that as little as possible remains in the gray area.

In a way, I suspect it's like thinking of the size of the universe or the fact that there was a time when it didn't exist (probably) and may be a time when it ceases to exist. That kind of makes the metaphysical footing seem unreliable. Since I believe that it is inherently unstable, I'm less bothered by the uncertainty than I am by other people's illusion of absolutes. I suppose that's why I can understand the heart of the game, Mage, but get bogged down in the application of its rules.

I agree that you're screwed when your ethics conflict, but I do think it's possible to come to peace with the situation. After all, you have to live with one outcome or the other no matter what you do.

[wheloc.livejournal.com]

When you find yourself in situations where you're forced to compromise your ethics, you need to consider the possibility that your ethics arn't very good. Or at least they arn't what you think they are:)

[the_rck]

I think it's possible to be in a situation in which one's ethics conflict with each other. At that point, one has to choose which bits are more important. I don't know that there's a wrong choice there, at least from a personal point of view (society may have other ideas, of course), but I react badly to people who don't acknowledge that they're making a decision.

And when you say "aren't very good," do you mean not very well constructed or not actually ethical??

[wheloc.livejournal.com]

People have all sorts of principles bumping about their psyche. I dunno where they come, some combination of nature and nurture probably. They're there, and they can certainly be in conflict with each other (though most people have an internal heiarchy, be they aware of it or not). While having principles may be easy, living them can be difficult. They're abstract, while life is concrete.

We (individually, or as a society) constuct an ethical code to give us some framework of behavior to help us live up to our principles. A good ethical code does so, a bad one dosn't. While the underlying principles might be subjective, the ethics themselves can be analysed objectivally (err... or such is my subjective opinion).

For example, take the code "Will not kill under any circumstances". If this comes from an underlying respect for human life, this is a bad ethical code. If Vash reached a Vordarian Point (one where he could either kill, or allow others to die), his ethical code would allow others to die, in violation of his principles. On the other hand, there are other principles for which "shall not kill" might be good ethics (divine comandment, avoiding getting your hands dirty, not wanting to feel "icky").

The Vordarian Point is a conflict of principles. Ethics are supposed to help us navigate these.

Regardless, I like the terminology, hope you don't mind if I use it :)

[the_rck]

Feel free to use the term. Scott also likes "Vordarian Limit."