Which is more moral?

[Goldengirl]

Alright, so we all know that there are four branches of magic, Mental, Battle, Healing, and Blessing. Of these, Mental and Battle can be used for battle.

 

So, my question is, which is more moral to use?

 

On the one hand, Mental Magic could be considered the best. Mental Magic is not inherently malicious, and is temporary. Furthermore, there are only a few spells I'd consider actually "killing". Specifically, spells that take away free will, specifically charm, dominate, and mass madness. Even if these acts are temporary, they cause the opponents to go against their comrades unwillingly, perhaps killing them, and as such is even more heinous.

 

Meanwhile, no matter how complex the spell, Battle Magic simply kills via bodily harm, usually quickly. However, some of the spells, especially when they do not kill immediately, such as lightning aura, only cause prolonged pain, before an assumed death, and thus can be equated roughly to torture. It is for this reason that I believe that Battle Magic is still in the running for least moral.

 

Surely, though, the absolutely most immoral is casting lightning aura, charming the opponent, having him kill all his opponents, and then, once the charm wears off, obliterating him.

 

So, my fellow Spiderwebbers, what is your opinion?

[Feo Takahari]

I suppose Mental Magic can also be called more moral if you use Daze on a foe, then run past them without killing them. (This isn't too far from the tactics I use in games that aren't experience-based, but I've found--through personal experience--that playing Geneforge morally is a sure path to a Game Over.)

[Acky]

Hm

 

Obviously Blessing magic and Healing craft can't be considered immoral for the simple fact that it does the exact opposite of hurting. Battle magic would more directly be considered evil because it just hurts people. Torturing through through Lighting Aura is also probable immoral. Mental Magic, on the other hand, is pure evil, especially charm and dominate. You mess with some one's mind, maybe even causing permanent damage. It be even more evil if when you use charm on an enemy if their conscious to what's happening. They kill all their buddy's and then get blasted to smithereens

 

So, my vote goes to Mental Magic as being the most immoral.

[Alorael at Large]

Kant would say that Mental Magic is the worst, as it deprives targets of free will. Mill would disagree and say it just matters how much suffering you inflict, so depending on the psychological damage of Mental Magic and the physical suffering of Battle Magic you could argue either way.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't particularly think anyone will win awards for good behavior with either one. Generally killing people is considered more ethical than messing with heads, though. Soldiers are good, upstanding people. Shrinks are weirdos even when they're trying to do good.

[Ouroboros]

Hmmm a difficult question you have but in my opinion the Mental magic is quite immoral when you charm,dominate or mass madness and for Battle Magic it will be immoral if the user just want to torture but different when he/she want to defend his/her self. So its Mental Magic

[Brock The Archmage]

Immorality, eh? hmmm.

 

Well, i would rather be killed than be forced to do things against my will. I would like to point out, though, that Mental magic is not as effective against those with a strong will, whereas Battle magic always is pure destruction. On the morality scale, I'd have to say a battle mage is equal to a mental mage.

 

Let us not forget, though, the reasons WHY you use the magic, and on whom.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Brock The Archmage

Well, i would rather be killed than be forced to do things against my will.

Boy, are you ever gonna have a hard time when you're trying to find a job.

[Uberdhizon]

Quote:

trying to find a job.

*said wistfully*: Why would anyone want a job...? We can just play Geneforge for a living...

[Frozen Feet]

Playing computer games doesn't bring food to the table, unless it's also your job. I believe that if you really had to play for living, it wouldn't be nearly as fun.

 

As for the question, how moral using a tool is depends on how exactly it is used. This also raises the question what the tool can be used for in the first place. Battle magic consists mostly from blowing things up, whereas mental magic has more diverse effects. Because of that diversity I believe mental magic has far more potential for perverse acts, but in most situations I'd choose it over battle magic because it's also better suited for peaceful solutions. Also, what the heck is this "free will" people keep babbling about?

[*i]

Morality depends on the person using it. My morals are different than yours. Granted, there are some generally agreed upon things such as killing people indiscriminately. Nonetheless, is using a gun in war to kill a human being immoral? It depends on the person. Someone could argue that anything that makes you more effective at killing would be immoral as well.

 

What is more concrete is ethics. These apply more to societal norms than individuals. If you are a soldier, is it ethical to kill an opponent in war as a means of survival? Yes. Now we can argue about the ethicality of war itself, but given that you are trapped in one (whether ethical or not), it is not unethical to kill.

 

Mind control is an interesting topic. Are there a set of circumstances in which controlling another person's mind would be ethical? What do people think?

[Dikiyoba]

Well, if it's ethical to kill an opponent to survive, it seems like it would be ethical to control an opponent just enough to ensure they don't kill you.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Uberdhizon]

I for one don't think it matters at all. If you're going to kill someone, do it right. Who cares after that?

[Brock The Archmage]

Originally Posted By: Thuryl

Originally Posted By: Brock The Archmage

Well, i would rather be killed than be forced to do things against my will.

Boy, are you ever gonna have a hard time when you're trying to find a job.

nah. I believe in contracts. If I agree to work for someone, I will fulfill my word, whether or not I like it. No, I meant truly FORCED to do something, as opposed to having a choice, however undesirable the alternative choice is.

[Feo Takahari]

Myself, I would argue that almost anything would be ethical in some hypothetical situation. Consider Alorael's ideas about a society of baby-killers. That said, some acts, such as rape, can only be justified under circumstances that in real life have almost no chance of occurring. On the specific subject of mind control, I have an unusual perspective, because I see people "mind controlled" every day by politicians, teachers, and other authority figures, while I myself only go along with what makes sense to me. I can even control others sometimes, saying utter nonsense in just such a way that people do what I want. It feels like black magic, and I tend to avoid it even when I'm arguing with someone who won't listen to logic, but it's been used for good at times. (For instance, most of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches can be called mind control in the name of peace and love, because most of his arguments make no sense in and of themselves, but everything he argues could be argued in such a way to make sense, and his arguments seem to be more effective than logic for rallying people.) I would justify literal mind control in the same way.

 

P.S. If you don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about by "mind control," a good place to start would be the "Cross of Gold" speech by William Jennings Bryan. For instance, he says he's not going to criticize the people of the Atlantic right before he criticizes them, and he invokes symbols like the titular "Cross of Gold" in such a way that one can float on a sea of emotion rather than actually think about what he's saying. For the grandmaster of the technique, try Hitler.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: feo takahari

On the specific subject of mind control, I have an unusual perspective, because I see people "mind controlled" every day by politicians, teachers, and other authority figures, while I myself only go along with what makes sense to me.

It's funny how everybody else always says the same thing, isn't it?

[Randomizer]

Mind control motivation is the key to the good vs. evil debate. feo takahari gives excellent examples of evil usages whereas using daze to stop an attack would be considered a good usage. You aren't causing damage and no one is hurt. The use of a stun gun instead of a bullet.

 

Using charm to force an enemy to kill his friends would be considered evil. You could argue that having the enemies fight amongst themselves will save lives on your side, so in a "good" war you are doing a "good" act by killing the enemy more efficiently. Less lives will be lost than in fighting them all yourself. Drop an atomic bomb and you speed up the process even more.

[The Mystic]

When it comes to spellcasting, I leave morals to mortals. If a spell does what I want it to do (usually in the form of healing myself or killing an enemy), then it's right.

[Desmarestia]

If we assume a degree of personal freedom on the NPC's part, mental magic is the greater evil because it forces your enemy to fight the battle that, more often than not, you initiated. When I non-fatally burn, freeze, corrode, or otherwise harm my opponents, theoretically they have the choice to run away and avoid senseless slaughter. If they run, it's because they value their own lives. (Maybe I'm going to hunt them down and brutally end them anyway, or vice versa, but right now the survival instinct has been appeased.) If I charm, daze, or terrify* my enemies instead, they become slaves to my violent whims. I utterly disregard any personal bias toward peace and force them to kill and die.

 

Of course, I'm trying to inject real-world motives into a fantasy game. I agree with feo takahari; trying to carry your real-world code of ethics over into Geneforge is pointless and will make you crazy.

 

*EDIT: by "terrify," I meant "terrify such that enemy is unable to defend against my continuing attack" because that's how I use the spell.

[Alorael at Large]

If your enemies fleeing is better than their dying, isn't Terrify always the better choice?

 

Originally Posted By: feo takahari

Myself, I would argue that almost anything would be ethical in some hypothetical situation. Consider Alorael's ideas about a society of baby-killers. That said, some acts, such as rape, can only be justified under circumstances that in real life have almost no chance of occurring

I don't remember bringing up such a society. I agree that anything can be justified by the right extenuating circumstances (i.e. I'm a utilitarian), but I can't imagine a society being functional while killing all babies, let alone moral. On the other hand, in a particular society infanticide might be justified.

 

Quote:

(For instance, most of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches can be called mind control in the name of peace and love, because most of his arguments make no sense in and of themselves, but everything he argues could be argued in such a way to make sense, and his arguments seem to be more effective than logic for rallying people.) I would justify literal mind control in the same way.

Rhetoric isn't mind control! Convincing someone can be immoral, but entirely depriving someone of will adds another level of harm. Or, depending on how things work out, it could be more moral. Convincing someone to kill his family for no reason leaves him with the moral burden of having done so. Literally forcing him to means he may have no family but at least he doesn't have to blame himself. I don't think rhetoric and mind control are the same, but I do agree that both can be right or wrong depending on circumstances.

 

On the other hand, since depriving someone of will is generally a bad idea both in the moment and as a precedent, I'd say you need much more moral justification for mind control.

 

—Alorael, who wonders if politics would work better if politicians were forbidden from giving speeches. He's at least pretty sure things wouldn't get worse.

[Shaper Erika]

Originally Posted By: Desmarestia

If we assume a degree of personal freedom on the NPC's part, mental magic is the greater evil because it forces your enemy to fight the battle that, more often than not, you initiated.

Except when mental magic is used to avoid battle...

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Resurrection Man

Alorael, who wonders if politics would work better if politicians were forbidden from giving speeches. He's at least pretty sure things wouldn't get worse.

Maybe, maybe not; the politicians would just use other ways to warp the truth. In politics, when you think things can't go any lower, somebody proves otherwise by digging.

[Desmarestia]

Originally Posted By: Shaper Erika

Originally Posted By: Desmarestia

If we assume a degree of personal freedom on the NPC's part, mental magic is the greater evil because it forces your enemy to fight the battle that, more often than not, you initiated.

Except when mental magic is used to avoid battle...

That's true. I do occasionally terrify some furious servile or civilian to keep him from impaling himself on my spines. Aren't I a nice person.

[Uberdhizon]

Quote:

mind controlled" every day by politicians, teachers, and other authority figures,

Biting a pupil is the best way to mind-control if you're a teacher.
Sorry, just couldn't resist saying that.

[Feo Takahari]

Originally Posted By: Tem44e

Rhetoric isn't mind control! Convincing someone can be immoral, but entirely depriving someone of will adds another level of harm. Or, depending on how things work out, it could be more moral. Convincing someone to kill his family for no reason leaves him with the moral burden of having done so. Literally forcing him to means he may have no family but at least he doesn't have to blame himself. I don't think rhetoric and mind control are the same, but I do agree that both can be right or wrong depending on circumstances.

I'd call it mind control if you convince someone by saying something that, if considered logically, has no more meaning than "Dogs are ducks. Therefore, dogs can swim." I have a sort of defensive reaction whereby when someone else makes an argument, even one I believe, I start automatically coming up with arguments for the other side. (This is why I tend to get called a neo-Nazi whenever someone brings up Hitler--I hate the guy too, I'm just playing devil's advocate.) Anyways, if an argument turns out to be a string of non sequiturs, it's less "convincing" than "hacking," or exploiting some glitch in the human brain that allows charismatic people to bypass rationality. The reason I call it "black magic" is that it gives me the same feeling as if the control came from reciting a gibberish incantation rather than just plain gibberish.
P.S. Not that I'm completely immune to this stuff. After all, there was the year I spent believing that Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. I just have a strong resistance.
Edit: almost forgot. Your argument for a baby-killing society was in a thread on gay marriage, in response to my attempted disproof of the Divine Command theory of ethics. You joked that you could make a sci-fi novel out of said society, and that you would "start looking for a publisher with a strong stomach immediately."

[Alorael at Large]

I said that? Wow, I'm so brilliant I amaze myself. Ahem.

 

While mind control doesn't exist, I think to qualify it would necessarily have to depend only on the user, not the target. Charisma doesn't work like that. You can convince people with bad arguments, but they're not mindless and can be convinced otherwise.

 

—Alorael, who isn't arguing that using charisma is always moral. In fact, he believes charisma is without moral value, as properties are always neutral. Only the application can be good or evil. His argument is simply that calling charisma "mind control" makes no sense.

[Desmarestia]

Originally Posted By: Tem44e

You can convince people with bad arguments, but they're not mindless and can be convinced otherwise.

You take a more complimentary view of humans than I do. I happen to believe that most people are mindless, at least in the presence of respected authority figures, convinced by shine instead of substance. Some are too lazy to think. Some are desperate for guidance. Others are "affiliated," whatever that's supposed to mean.

While I agree that charisma as a principle is not mind control, any application of charisma is at least mental manipulation. You cannot take the mentally weak, exploit their weaknesses to make them do or think something foreign to themselves, and claim not to be controlling them. I also dispute your assertion that the property of charisma is morally neutral, simply because the tendency to exploit mental weakness in others is contrary to the expression of the victims' personalities and therefore evil in my book.

[Randomizer]

Mob control is different from individual control. It's easier to sway a mob than a few individuals, because as a group they are more willing to go along with what they perceive as the majority. While individuals may later revert back, they will keep quiet to avoid angering a mob around them.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Desmarestia

I also dispute your assertion that the property of charisma is morally neutral, simply because the tendency to exploit mental weakness in others is contrary to the expression of the victims' personalities and therefore evil in my book.

Isn't the tendency to have one's mental weakness exploited by others a part of the victim's personality, though? Far from preventing the victim's personality from being expressed, the manipulator is helping the victim express that particular aspect of their personality.

[Desmarestia]

True, pliability is a character trait. But the exploitation of pliability can interfere with other character traits that might be more central to the individual. Traits that manifest themselves outside the presence of a charismatic figure.

[Paladin95]

As the devil's advocate, I turn the argument that destruction of the individual is immoral. In an instrumentalist sense, the destruction of the individual is morally and ethically correct. The consensus appears to be that those who are most often manipulated are those who don't think and thereupon act. People who do not think make bad decisions which are a detriment to society. That they are manipulated is an act by which these bad decisions can be avoided, thus benefiting society.

[pitchblack]

Yes, but these people can be manipulated by those with both good intentions (Martin Luther King) of bad (Hitler). So, if manipulating those who are easy to manipulate is moral, then if is again immoral for the possibility of using this to perform immoral acts. Either way, the idea of mind control is immoral, and so id the idea of manipulating others, because even if it isn't inherently immoral, it is used more often than not for controlling and immoral purposes..

[Paladin95]

We live in a culture in which despotism is generally reviled and has been steadily declining for centuries. Clearly the ability to manipulate the weak-minded has lead not to the concentration of power (the type of immorality you reference with Hitler), but rather to the dissipation of power. This is so much the case that in civilized society as we know it the manipulated vs. the manipulator has become nearly the only distinction between human beings.

 

Being very nearly the same, these people can be (and generally are) regarded as essentially equal in value. All other class distinctions (i.e. socio-economic) fit well along the lines of those who do manipulate others (the wealthy), those who are not often manipulated (the middle class), and those who are often manipulated (the poor). That these can sometimes be self-perpetuating is beside the point.

 

Furthermore, the continually rising standard of living over the last ten-thousand years is evidence that the ability to manipulate others has in fact been used for the good of humanity rather than to damage it. I thus maintain that manipulation is not only inherently moral, but that it tends to be used for moral purposes. Any immoral uses of control are the exception, while benevolence (or at least mutual benefit) are the rule.

[Desmarestia]

Who benefits by the manipulation of the weak-minded? Is it the individual, or the society? Historically, social "advances" consist of an increasing separation of the exploiters and the exploited. I reject the importance placed on society at the expense of its members. Society is not alive and its needs should not be fulfilled to the detriment of the human beings making it up.

[pitchblack]

Originally Posted By: Paladin95

Furthermore, the continually rising standard of living over the last ten-thousand years is evidence that the ability to manipulate others has in fact been used for the good of humanity rather than to damage it. I thus maintain that manipulation is not only inherently moral, but that it tends to be used for moral purposes. Any immoral uses of control are the exception, while benevolence (or at least mutual benefit) are the rule.

But if you look at the difference of the quality of living between the manipulators and the manipulated, you will see a very large gap. The standard of living has only increased over the years because the manipulators are seeking to increase theirs, and as they find new things, the old ones slowly trickle back to everyone else.

[Paladin95]

Pitchblack makes a valid point: that much progress on the whole is a results of the "trickle down" of luxury. That this creates a disparity in socio-economic classes does not make it immoral. In fact, because manipulation of others is the primary cause of said socio-economic disparity, we can reasonably conclude that it is the manipulated who get the short end of the stick materialistically. But if they are weak-minded and easily manipulated, they also lack the ability to decide for themselves if their level of material comfort is above that of the average human being. So long as they are led to be happy with what they have, they will be. Can a process really be immoral if it results in emotional satisfaction?

[pitchblack]

But if you look at human history again, when are the manipulated usually happy with the short end of stick? Look at the English Revolution of the 1600's, the internal strife in the Roman empire right beofre it fell, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the October Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union... I can go on if you want me to. The point is, even if people achieve a state of happiness for a short time with manipulators watching over them, they eventually grow discontent, and rebel.

 

EDIT: I will admit that the manipulated leaders of all these rebellions eventually go back in the end to become the new manipulators, but all this does is continue the bloody cycle.

 

EDIT 2: Man, I really would like to meet you in a debate tournament. That would be a fun round. : )

[Randomizer]

The American Revolution was the revolt of some upper class colonists who wanted more for themselves. The lower classes joined in, but most were split between loyalty to Great Britian or the Revolution based upon what was in it for them.

 

You can't say our Founding Fathers were lower class since most were land owners with extensive wealth.

[pitchblack]

True, but they rebelled against manipulation from Britain. See my Edit 1 for clarification.

 

EDIT: YAY! 200 POSTS!

[Paladin95]

Originally Posted By: pitchblack

But if you look at human history again, when are the manipulated usually happy with the short end of stick? Look at the English Revolution of the 1600's, the internal strife in the Roman empire right beofre it fell, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the October Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union... I can go on if you want me to. The point is, even if people achieve a state of happiness for a short time with manipulators watching over them, they eventually grow discontent, and rebel.

EDIT: I will admit that the manipulated leaders of all these rebellions eventually go back in the end to become the new manipulators, but all this does is continue the bloody cycle.

EDIT 2: Man, I really would like to meet you in a debate tournament. That would be a fun round. : )

That would be fun. I love running squirrel cases, like a "democracy bad" neg on the last LD resolution. xD

Anyway, revolution is always instigated by the next class down from the top. This is either a middle class or, more often, the lower class when the middle class ceases to exist (see: French Revolution, Russian Revolution). This is not because they are unhappy with what they have, but because they a) see that others are far better off and realize that revolution is the only means to upward mobility (see: George Orwell, your standard high school world history text). To be dissatisfied with the lot of others is entirely separate from dissatisfaction with one's own lot, and much more easily avoided by the manipulator.

I cede that it is possible for the manipulators to make errors which upset the equilibrium and, thus, emotional stability of society, but human errors in execution do not make the act itself immoral. Public education is not inherently immoral, even if the occasional mistake is made which dooms a child to forever hate and defy the conventional wisdom there taught.

[pitchblack]

Did you manage to pull that off? I mean, in the words of Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have already been tried"...

 

Also, you cantrdict yourself. You state that the revolutions happened because the middle and lower classes see that someone is better off, not because they are unhappy. But in order to really want something that someone else has, doesn't that imply by nature that you are unhappy with what you have because you do not have what the other person has?

 

Also, while I agree that the idea of public education is moral, id the execution that we have currently really moral? See, for example, much gang violence in larger cities, very high dropout rates, etc. But the exectution is the fault of our society, which in turn is dictated by the manipulators.

 

And if you say that those high school dropouts are happy, think again. The only reason that we have not had any revolutions yet (since the Civil War, at least), is that the malcontents have not reached a large enough critical mass.

 

EDIT: All this, of course, applies to the U.S. I'm not sure about other places.

[Paladin95]

Never made it to the tournament floor, because my soccer team miraculously made state semi-finals of the President's Cup. I liked how it ran, though. "So, your value of justice in important because justice supports democratic society?"

 

"Yes."

 

"Turn my opponent's entire case. The objective of any society is to obtain an enduring state of well-being for its citizens. Democracy cannot accomplish this. Thus, we must guide society on the path that leads to the destruction of democracy. Democracy is bad. Because my opponent's position supports democracy, it is also bad. You must favor negation of the resolution if societal welfare is to be achieved."

 

Paraphrased, but funneh.

 

Ahem...

 

That you agree to the distinction between the immorality of concept and immorality of execution negates any point to the effect that manipulation of others is flawed because the manipulators make mistakes. Revolution is caused by the perception of class disparity which arises only because manipulators foolishly allow it to. By the simple act of denying the manipulated a standard of comparison - as in "1984" - this sentiment can be eradicated, leading the manipulated to remain indefinitely satisfied with their material wealth. Thus, the fact that unhappiness and revolution occur within manipulating societies is not evidence that the act of manipulation is itself immoral.

[pitchblack]

Read Animal Farm, not 1984... so can't make comparisons there.

 

But you are talking about a perfect society. Now you've run into the problem that creating a perfect society is impossible, as there are no perfect people to lead it. Theoretically, it might be possible under the direction of an AI (a whole other ball game), but under humans, who always make mistakes, this is impossible. Therefore, the manipulation of others on a societal scale (individual scale is a whole other argument again) is immoral due to the fact that it is not possible to do it in a way that makes everyone content.

 

Take this for example. Communism is, on paper, the perfect society. But, in all attempts at the execution of communism, it has failed due to the fact that the leaders (or manipulators) are human and therefore fallible. The only surviving communist states today are all totalitarian regimes.

[Paladin95]

Now, I could go with the "prove that the citizens in said totalitarian regimes are unhappy" angle, but even I recognize that as abuse.

 

This is the problem with playing devil's advocate: you always lose.

[pitchblack]

I love the 'perfect' argument. So hard to defend against when it makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense that often.

 

And playing devil's advocate is fun, and you don't always lose. Just when you purposely take the side that is harder to support, but those times are the most fun.

 

And I admit, you almost had me before I remembered my 'Perfect Innocence' argument from the death penalty topic last year.

 

EDIT: Also, did you notice that somewhere that turned from the manipulation to the individual as an individual to manipulation of an individual as a part of the whole?

[Paladin95]

Yeah, from the argument that destroying the individual is justified when it serves the good of society. That's right up there with arguing in favor of nuclear war because it controls population growth. lol

 

I wish they would have more morality-based LD topics, though. The last two have both lacked a clear value that both sides can agree on. It kind of moves away from the value of the debate itself and into "Societal Welfare is better than Justice because Justice is a subset of Welfare." "No, Justice is better because it's more specific and limits to scope of the debate to a reasonable spectrum." Bleh.

[pitchblack]

Yeah.

 

Unfortunately, I moved this, year, and in order to be on the team at the school I'm currently going to, you have to take the class. And while that's perfectly acceptable with me, I couldn't change my schedule, so, I didn't do it this year.

 

So I haven't really kept up on the topics.

[Paladin95]

November-December - Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

 

"Justice" was way overused by both sides and those rounds turned into a debate about whose definition of "Justice" was better. A few people tried to throw something like "the proper application of punishment" in there but failed to show why their position was more "proper." A lot of people said "democracy," but that turned into an argument about whether a broad sample group produced better policies than a "pure ballot box."

 

January-February - Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity.

 

This will be sovereignty vs. justice in 80% of the rounds. I'll be running cosmopolitanism just so I don't shoot myself.

 

 

But on topic, we've shown that mind control is immoral, but not answered the question of whether it is more or less immoral than outright killing. Since the main thread of the mind control debate turned out to be the value of the individual, and because that value was more or less judged important, I'm going to take mental magic as the least moral form of attack.

[pitchblack]

My turn to play devil's advocate, then?

 

Ok, well, saying that the value of the individual is important does not qualify either mental of battle magic as the least immoral. And I propose that it doesn't really matter which is more moral or more immoral, due to the fact that the subject in question is going to wind up dead anyway, so why bother?

 

But, if we resume the argument as is, even if you do take over people using magic, what is to say that they realize what they are doing? If you are able to take over someones mind, then surely you should be able to induce some sort of euphoric bliss so the mind doesn't realize what it is doing.

 

On the other hand, with battle magic, especially the nastier types, the subject suffers. Being covered in a spray of acid or a cloud of lightning is not exactly my opinion of a good way to die.

[Paladin95]

Alright, first, my case.

 

The ultimate breach of morality is the destruction of the individual. All cognitive and decision-making processes are inherently flawed in that they cannot plausibly take proper account of all contributing factors. For example, neither of our cases is perfect and unbeatable in this debate because neither of us knows the exact response of the other in advance. However, if we were to share our different perspectives on the topic both of us would gain the tools to create better cases in the future. This pooling of understanding is why the individual is so valuable.

 

Further, I contend that any creature capable of making a decision (whether logically or instinctively) and somehow expressing elements of that decision (linguistically, as in humans, or through other visual and auditory displays, as in animals) can potentially contribute to this process. Because the targets of magical attacks we are discussing possess the ability to react to said attacks, they are obviously capable of both deciding to respond (logically or instinctively) and also of communicating this decision through the action of responding. Thus, all targets we are discussing are able to contribute to the aforementioned mutual benefit.

 

While any means of killing obviously destroys the individual, mental magic is most egregious because it directly targets the mechanism that generates individuality. While hurling fire or lightning are as much a means to death as charming or terrorizing, taking control of the mind contains the additional action of completely eradicating the individual prior to death. This direct targeting of the self is why mental magic is the least moral form of attack.

 

Turn the contention that preventing the subject from "realiz[ing] what they are doing" makes mental magic more moral. That the subject is ignorant of their actions is a further example of the complete destruction of their cognitive processes. Lack of realization represents a complete sacrifice of the individual over the the controlling party, which makes mental magic horribly immoral on the basis that it totally wipes out the ability to think, act, or react as a distinct entity.

 

Turn the contention that the suffering inflicted by acid or lightning clouds makes battle magic immoral. That battle magic can inflict slow, painful deaths makes it more moral. The imminent and known approach of death leads to the ultimate expression of the self. If the subject is suffering and knows that they will die, this becomes the context in which all their decisions are made and expressed - a context in which the burdens of life (and society in particular) are removed and the true self is laid bare for the world to see. The suffering imposed by battle magic in fact makes it more moral because the final acts of the target reveal their innermost identity.

 

EDIT: Grammar.

[Shaper Erika]

No no no, you're all wrong! Healing Craft is by far the most immoral circle of magic. More people = More war, suffering, and environmental damage.