Eren Jaeger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
abandonhumanity) wrote2023-09-26 12:38 pm
abandonhumanity) wrote2023-09-26 12:38 pm
PSL / MEME CONTINUATION
I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine
and rage the likes of which you would not believe.
If I cannot satisfy the one,
I will indulge the other.
no subject
Oh, you say that. But you also didn’t flinch about killing thousands. Even talking to friends, normal people cringe a little bit about the rest, shouldn’t they? [This is a hypothetical question.]
Now, my excuse is that everyone where I exist is a construct. You seem awfully real, though!
no subject
no subject
You know, fake. Not real. [With a little finger wag.] Pieces in a game, quite literally. Hence your misunderstanding!
[And with that:] We skipped your turn again. [Hypothetical, sure, but she did want an answer.]
no subject
What sort of "excuse" are you looking for?
no subject
Excuse, reason, what have you.
You agree that’s not a normal response, though.
no subject
Whether or not it's normal would depend on what exactly you're trying to measure.
It's a useless word.
no subject
Hmm. Fair play, fair play.
[There’s a moment’s pause, a chin tap. It’s a rather cartoonish gesture, punctuated by a snap and a point.] Entertain me this, then: suppose we’re measuring morality—and that that’s a useful yardstick. [Said like an inside joke. Because it’s totally not.] Is the “good” answer to sacrifice the one for the thousand, or to value your friend above all? And does it matter if it’s a reluctant kill or not?
no subject
Some people would say that saving the thousand is the moral thing to do. Some would value loyalty over profit.
[However, he will budge just a bit here:]
Most would agree that reluctance suggests a conscience, sure.
But killing without hesitation doesn't make someone evil. There are plenty of scenarios which require just that.
no subject
[Profit! That’s an interesting way to frame the utilitarian answer. Juuust gonna stick a mental pin in that. But first:]
Require just what, the zero-hesitation kill or the evil?
no subject
Both, actually. Depending on where you're standing.
Killing without hesitation is necessary whenever killing at all is. Maybe that is evil.
If that's the case, then your morality yardstick really is bullshit. If good and evil do exist, then it's the good that's the exception - since you want to talk about "normal".
no subject
Actually, I’d say prolonging the kill is a special type of evil. Torture, really, depending how you do it.
But of course it’s a nonsense yardstick. [That, too, is concluded with a handwave.] All hypothetical. That said, you brought up “evil.” How are we [and by this she means you] defining that, now?
no subject
If you haven't seen evil, then I don't know how to describe it to you.
Don't get me wrong. It's just as subjective as any other facet of morality.
Still, seeing what I've seen, ["Doing what I've done,"] you can't claim that it doesn't exist.
It's everywhere, in fact.
[His opinion on this topic is one that's prone to change each time he thinks about it, but, today, evil feels real and omnipresent. He breathes it in and exhales it back out, as thick and black as toxic smoke.]
no subject
[Ah! A reaction, how quaint.]
I do believe you’re putting words in my mouth, sir. [Not irritated. No more respectful than last round, either.] I’ve simply agreed the yardstick is nonsense. The judgments it attempts to measure are still perfectly… hm, common? Let’s say that.
Anyhow, you sound rather jaded!
no subject
[What's he gonna do? Deny it?]
no subject
And what terrible, horrible, no-good very-traumatizing things have made you so? [See, forget the B-movie. This is the riveting stuff.]
no subject
Don't be cute.
What reason would I have to share any of that with you? You must think you're funny.
[It's not that he's particularly opposed to sharing the basics, but he doesn't like this girl's attitude.]
no subject
Aw, you think I’m cute? [With a wink and a hand under her chin, for good measure. It’s all a joke, of course.] I think I’m hilarious.
It’s true, you have no good reason. No moral one, either. [Get it?] But you’ve indulged my curiosity [nosiness, more like] this far, as I have yours! We can trade tragic backstories too, if you’d like.
no subject
[He'd win though (or so he thinks).]
no subject
Who said it was a competition?
[He would win, though. He’s got quite the life to speak of, clearly!]
[Still. His interest in this conversation may be flagging. Not good!] Of course, if you insist on keeping your life near and dear to your heart, I won’t pry. [Lie of the century!] Or we can rewind to that teeny thing you said about “profit”! Your call.
no subject
no subject
[Rewind it is, then!]
“Some would value loyalty over profit.” [This is said about as deadpan as she can manage. It’s a semi-intentional mockery.] I think even the most hardline utilitarian would be reluctant to call saving a thousand people profit, as if weighing lives is a money game.
no subject
The question is hypothetical. No one's saving anyone. But they'll say they are if it makes them look good. Get it?
no subject
Actually, now that you mention it— Let’s run with the hypothetical again, shall we? You wouldn’t phrase it as ‘saving’ the one or the thousand, only killing, is that right?
no subject
Either, depending.
To save one, you condemn the other. That's the nature of the question.
no subject
[She gets looks like that a lot.]
Hm! Indeed it is. And it’s the kind of question that usually gets asked by someone picking apart morals. Morals, values, what have you; all flimsy little ideas, as I think we’ve agreed.
But it’s a false premise. If we really want to save people, we find whoever tied them to the tracks. No?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)