OOTS #1274 - The Discussion Thread

[faustin]

Julia is basically Riley from Inside Out, with Eugene, Sabine, Redcloak's niece and the others acting as her Emotions.

[Thecommander236]

That's definitely Eugene using an illusion spell, not Julia.

[Ravus]

First, Roy would probably never use an innocent as bait (with high chance of death) without asking for their consent first. Maybe in the extreme case where the bait has to not know that they're a bait or he doesn't have time to ask, he would be content being 100% convinced that they would have said yes. But sacrificing an innocent against their will is likely out of the question.

So the question is "At which point is Roy feeling ok with asking someone if they'd be willing to sacrifice themself?". And I have two guesses:
(1) Would be that impressionable peoples, children included, are a "no, it's not fair because they're don't fully understand what they agree too".
(2) Would be that Roy subconsciously categorised peoples in "those that need to be protected" and those who don't, and would never ask for a sacrifice to those that are in the first category.

Roy has had Vaarsuvius act as bait in the fight against the vampires (strip 1117, cannot link because my post count is low), so we know that he's ok with it to some extent.
The most relevant factor here is that V is not a child, but rather an adult who signed up for it. On top of that, it's going to be easier for a Lawful character to accept that a military commander has the right to impart dangerous orders to the people under his command.

I wonder how Roy would feel about putting Elan in a similar spot. My gut instinct tells me that it would bother him - it's conceptually no different from any party member (otherwise Elan should have no business being in the OotS at all), but it would still trigger Roy's big-brother protectiveness.

[StragaSevera]

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.

[Peelee]

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.

Nope.

Five people are dying. You can kill one healthy person and use the organs to save the five. Is killing that person good? No.

Millions of anonymous children will be killed by Xykon and Redcloak. Roy is trying to stop them. No matter what Roy chooses he will never have killed the anonymous children. You are shifting the burden to Roy to try to show how killing a child is good. It's not.

[danielxcutter]

Roy has had Vaarsuvius act as bait in the fight against the vampires (strip 1117, cannot link because my post count is low), so we know that he's ok with it to some extent.
The most relevant factor here is that V is not a child, but rather an adult who signed up for it. On top of that, it's going to be easier for a Lawful character to accept that a military commander has the right to impart dangerous orders to the people under his command.

I wonder how Roy would feel about putting Elan in a similar spot. My gut instinct tells me that it would bother him - it's conceptually no different from any party member (otherwise Elan should have no business being in the OotS at all), but it would still trigger Roy's big-brother protectiveness.

Also, V was buffed out the ass and would have taken almost no damage from the Chaos Hammer anyways, so that's probably a factor.

[Saint-Just]

Nope.

Five people are dying. You can kill one healthy person and use the organs to save the five. Is killing that person good? No.

Millions of anonymous children will be killed by Xykon and Redcloak. Roy is trying to stop them. No matter what Roy chooses he will never have killed the anonymous children. You are shifting the burden to Roy to try to show how killing a child is good. It's not.

This analogy doesn't work because Sunny is not "healthy" in that situation, he is "dying" too.

Moreover, Roy doesn't say that it is right not to risk Sunny in that situation, he just refuses to engage with the premise. His argument about lack of perfect information (he doesn't know whether sacrificing Sunny is the only way to resolve the situation satisfactory) is much more pertinent to most RL situation than abstract rule-based reasoning (doesn't matter whether that reasoning leads you to conclude sacrificing someone else is right or wrong).

[Peelee]

This analogy doesn't work because Sunny is not "healthy" in that situation, he is "dying" too.

Ok, let's go with a more accurate version, then. Is it good to kill one sick person to save five sick people? it is possible to save all the people without killing any of them and killing the one is no guarantee that you can save the five.

That makes it even worse.

[Faldrath]

I don't think it's Eugene for one single reason: Eugene would never apologize the way "Julia" does in panel 9. I don't think he'd be a good enough actor for that. True, he impersonated the celestial back in Azure City, but that was "easy" for him because it was supposed to be a powerful being that makes decisions. But all we've seen of Eugene in the strip suggests apologies for his behavior are beyond him.

[FireJustice]

the writting is so big in the wall.

Julia wasn´t Julia since.... the first case of "moddified" sending spell


the only thing that it makes many doubt its eugene is how "she" apologizes 1274, that is really weird

[woweedd]

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.

Killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is not acceptable either, that's, ya know, why he's currently one of the main people trying to prevent their deaths. But killing one child, by direct action, is ALSO unacceptable as far as he's concerned. Certain tactics are morally off limits, regardless of the broader stragetic value. It's the cost of being a Good person.

[Ravus]

Also, V was buffed out the ass and would have taken almost no damage from the Chaos Hammer anyways, so that's probably a factor.

An important one as well - Roy's portrayed (at least in recent strips) as the type to take strong responsibility for people under his command.

However, I get the impression that he would not have sent out Sunny instead of V even in that same exact situation, with that same protection.

[Crusher]

Killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is not acceptable either, that's, ya know, why he's currently one of the main people trying to prevent their deaths. But killing one child, by direct action, is ALSO unacceptable as far as he's concerned. Certain tactics are morally off limits, regardless of the broader stragetic value. It's the cost of being a Good person.

Right. And the response (which Julia makes) is "What if you HAVE to sacrifice the child to save everyone else?" and Roy's rebuttal is "That might be the easiest and most obvious option, but I don't accept that its the ONLY one and I'm willing to die trying to find other solutions."

[pendell]

Ok, let's go with a more accurate version, then. Is it good to kill one sick person to save five sick people? it is possible to save all the people without killing any of them and killing the one is no guarantee that you can save the five.

That makes it even worse.

Seems accurate. We don't have any plans yet to tackle Xykon, and no indication that sacrificing a team member would actually help matters. Julia went directly to sacrificing a team member because she's true neutral; Roy is more hesitant because he's lawful good.

We haven't yet seen that this is a trolley problem where the only way to save every life in the world is to sacrifice a child's life. There may be other possibilities which allow all of them to survive, and I think we need to explore those options first.

Still, Roy has to answer this question: Is Sunny a combatant or not? If Sunny is, then Roy has to accept there's a very real possibility that Sunny will be killed or injured going up against an epic level lich.

And if Roy's not cool with that, he's going to have to ask Sunny to sit this one out. But I don't think either Sunny or Serini will accept that.

I also wonder how Roy is coming to grips with the fact that the Order is probably going to take casualties in this fight.

ETA: I guess what's getting me is this quote from The Killer Angels. It's attributed to R.E. Lee, but of course this is entirely fictional dialogue. The real R.E. Lee didn't say this but the sentiment holds up pretty well.

"To be a good soldier you must love the army. But to be a good officer you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love. This is...a very hard thing to do. No other profession requires it. That is one reason why there are so very few good officers. Although there are many good men."

...
"We protect ourselves out of military necessity, not do not protect yourself enough and must give thought to it. I need you. But the point is, we are afraid to die. We are prepared for our own deaths, and for the deaths of comrades. We learn that at the Point. But I have seen this happen: we are not prepared for as many deaths as we have to face, inevitably as the war goes on. There comes a time..."

...
"We are never prepared for so many to die. So you understand? No one is. We expect some chosen few. We expect an occasional empty chair, a toast to dear departed comrades. Victory celebrations for most of us, a hallowed death for a few. But the war goes on. And the men die. The price gets ever higher. Some officers...can pay no longer. We are prepared to lose some of us." He paused again. "But never ALL of us. Surely not all of us. But...that is the trap. You can hold nothing back when you attack. You must commit yourself totally. And yet ,if they all die, a man must ask himself, will it have been worth it?”

I guess what's bothering my about this whole line of discussion is that, while it's still wrong to deliberately order someone to certain death if it can be avoided, the fact is that if you're accepting someone as a combatant then you also have to accept there's a very real chance you're going to give that person orders which will result in their death.

And if Roy isn't willing to give such orders to Sunny, he needs Sunny not to fight in this battle at all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fish]

Killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is not acceptable either, that's, ya know, why he's currently one of the main people trying to prevent their deaths.

Correct. And, lest we forget, it’s the entire pantheon of gods who are doing all of the killing. And the threat exists because Roy has been left to solve, with his mortal tools, a problem the gods refused to solve themselves. {scrubbed}.

[Wintermoot]

I guess what's bothering my about this whole line of discussion is that, while it's still wrong to deliberately order someone to certain death if it can be avoided, the fact is that if you're accepting someone as a combatant then you also have to accept there's a very real chance you're going to give that person orders which will result in their death.

Not getting into whether I believe in this sentiment or in your above quote because it would be a distraction.

-IF- you take this as a given, then it's also true that the responsibility of the commander is not just 'be willing to expend resources" but rather "be capable of expending resources intelligently, capably and morally"

There are myriad ways to use Sunny without "use her as bait" or "send her into a situation where she has a high probability of death"

To many times do I see people stop at the "a commander must be willing to sacrifice his resources" without getting to the "capably, intelligently and morally" Which misses the point.

The strongest commander isn't simply "capable of sending his troops to death", but rather ONLY does so when it's the intelligent, logical and moral thing to do in that situation.

And if you DON'T believe that their is a moral responsibility on the shoulders of the commander with the power to "expend resources" then I'm hopeful you are not in a position to expend any resources.

[arimareiji]

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.

There are a number of good arguments to be made against this perspective, some of which have been made already. But I'm also glad this was pointed out, because one of the good arguments for it is "We all need reminders from time to time that in-group bias is a terrible look." Saving A, or letting A get away with blatant shenanigans because A is someone we know and/or like - whereas we'd let B die, or condemn B for even a hint of the same - is a path paved with good intentions.

[JNinja]

Wow everyone’s distracted with the Julia/Eugene/etc debate and no one has yet commented on the similarity to https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html

[arimareiji]

Wow everyone’s distracted with the Julia/Eugene/etc debate and no one has yet commented on the similarity to https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html

You've got me dreadfully curious - I don't understand the similarity you see (theme, plot point, subtext, etc), but I'd like to. The stuff that's not immediately obvious is often the most rewarding.

Edit: Never mind, I think I get it now. The events of that strip had too much of my attention, so I didn't get Haley:Belkar::Roy:Julia?.

[pendell]

N
-IF- you take this as a given, then it's also true that the responsibility of the commander is not just 'be willing to expend resources" but rather "be capable of expending resources intelligently, capably and morally"

There are myriad ways to use Sunny without "use her as bait" or "send her into a situation where she has a high probability of death"

To many times do I see people stop at the "a commander must be willing to sacrifice his resources" without getting to the "capably, intelligently and morally" Which misses the point.

Fair point. A commander who stupidly and wastefully throws lives away, in addition to the moral issue, is also making problems because those people who were killed aren't there for future battles. It hastens the point when the offensive culminates and you have to wait for the units to refit and replace. Wasteful officers, especially at the lower levels, also have to worry about going to sleep lest they find they have a grenade as a bunkmate.

I take it as given that Roy won't get his people killed unnecessarily. Really, that should be a sine qua non of any capable commander in stick-verse, even of a Tarquin. It's one reason Roy's more capable than Julia -- because he's willing to put some thought into how he risks his people, rather than going immediately to "sacrifice the ally" as his first choice. Julia's statement to that effect reminds me of Xykon stating that there's no problem which can't be solved with endless minions. Which is not just evil but also stupid, especially when your minions are not endless but can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Counterbalancing that is the fact that for all the "capable, intelligent, moral" modifiers you've still got to win. Because if you lose it means the lives spent were spent for nothing. And there's no way that expenditure, however small, can be justified as capable, intelligent, or moral if all it does is get people killed.

Even so... to my mind "reject Julia's plan because it puts a team member at unnecessary risk" is a good answer. "reject Julia's plan because it puts a child in danger" isn't. Because if your concern is putting a child in danger, that child shouldn't be a combatant in the first place; there's no way you can fight this without putting Sunny at significant risk of life and ... um, tentacle? Eye-stalk?

So I think Roy's giving the right answer but for the wrong reason.

And if you DON'T believe that their is a moral responsibility on the shoulders of the commander with the power to "expend resources" then I'm hopeful you are not in a position to expend any resources.

I do, in fact, believe a commander has the responsibility to spend their people as parsimoniously, capably, and intelligently as possible -- with the understanding that with all those qualifiers it still means you're going to get a lot of people killed. And if I can go my whole life without having to make that kind of decision for-real, I will die content.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JNinja]

Edit: Never mind, I think I get it now. The events of that strip had too much of my attention, so I didn't get Haley:Belkar::Roy:Julia?.

Yes - specifically the “We won’t kill a child unless we absolutely have to.” Could be interesting to compare and contrast, I unfortunately have other things I should be doing with my time first

[Tubercular Ox]

Wow everyone’s distracted with the Julia/Eugene/etc debate and no one has yet commented on the similarity to https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html

I did! Hi, it's nice to meet you.

Also, this scene sets up how Roy feels about monstrous children. If there are any other monstrous children in the story, that's going to pay off later.

To me it looks like the Monster in the Dark is on a path to putting the party in a moral quandary, as opposed to physical or other, but a moral quandary in which we're going to know which side some characters are on.

And maybe Sunny thrown in, too.

[PontificatusRex]

Very interesting discussion. It seems to me that Propbably-Eugene was suggesting seriously Amanda Waller level tactics and strategy: Throwing lives away in pursuit if your goal as the default instead of the last resort, because you don't actually value those lives.

Even so... to my mind "reject Julia's plan because it puts a team member at unnecessary risk" is a good answer. "reject Julia's plan because it puts a child in danger" isn't. Because if your concern is putting a child in danger, that child shouldn't be a combatant in the first place; there's no way you can fight this without putting Sunny at significant risk of life and ... um, tentacle? Eye-stalk?

So I think Roy's giving the right answer but for the wrong reason.

Hmm, I see the point but still hard disagree. A child is not likely to have the same risk assessment abilities as an adult, and is more likely to do what they are told because they are in the habit of obeying parents and other adults. They can't give consent the way an adult can.

There is a big difference between "This child has powerful abilities that could make the difference between the world ending or not (and has previous combat experience) so we are going to have them take part in the battle" vs "We are setting up this child as a pawn to sacrifice as an opening strategic move". Even a chlidlike adult such as Elan is going to have a better idea of what they're setting themselves up for unless they are being deceived about the level of risk, which brings us back to Amanda Waller - style tactics and definitely deep side of the alignment pool behavior.

[StragaSevera]

Nope.

Five people are dying. You can kill one healthy person and use the organs to save the five. Is killing that person good? No.

Millions of anonymous children will be killed by Xykon and Redcloak. Roy is trying to stop them. No matter what Roy chooses he will never have killed the anonymous children. You are shifting the burden to Roy to try to show how killing a child is good. It's not.

Yep. You should not kill one healthy person for five people, because of ontological defence of the innocent.
But you clearly should kill him for million people, because no amount of innocence can outweigh a million people's lives.
It's just in numbers. I cannot say the clear boundary, but it is perfectly clear for all rational people that literal million of lives outweigh one.

And, yes, this analogy is manipulative because it's not one vs five, it's one vs five plus one.

A commander who stupidly and wastefully throws lives away, in addition to the moral issue, is also making problems because those people who were killed aren't there for future battles.

Of course. That's why using Sunny as bait should be discussed purely on strategic merits, and not on the "oh my god a child that I know can die" merits.
It's completely possible that the way to save most people is not to use him as bait. But it needs to be discussed in this terms.

[Peelee]

Yep. You should not kill one healthy person for five people, because of ontological defence of the innocent.
But you clearly should kill him for million people, because no amount of innocence can outweigh a million people's lives.
It's just in numbers. I cannot say the clear boundary, but it is perfectly clear for all rational people that literal million of lives outweigh one.

Nope. You can kill him. I won't. That's a line I won't cross, man. Not gonna kill an innocent.

[StragaSevera]

Nope. You can kill him. I won't. That's a line I won't cross, man. Not gonna kill an innocent.

Well, then you are killing a million of innocent people by inaction, just to keep your cognitive patterns safe.
I, on the other hand, would prefer to have 999 999 people live. If I am willing to sacrifice myself to save a million people, then I'm obliged to sacrifice my sanity and my feeling-of-scale cognitive bias.

If we are talking about five people, the "innocence" defence should work, because you are undermining the foundations of the society by choosing to kill an innocent man. But you absolutely should risk undermining them a bit in order to save 1 000 000 people.
I'm obliged to not give real-life examples on this forum, but spies in the middle of the last century were making such decisions - and if they did not, then we may not be talking right now.

[hroþila]

Yep. You should not kill one healthy person for five people, because of ontological defence of the innocent.
But you clearly should kill him for million people, because no amount of innocence can outweigh a million people's lives.
It's just in numbers. I cannot say the clear boundary, but it is perfectly clear for all rational people that literal million of lives outweigh one.

Utilitarianism is a perfectly defensible ethical philosophy, but it's definitely not the be-all and end-all of ethics, and it's a bit weird to pretend there aren't other perfectly defensible schools of thought.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yep. You should not kill one healthy person for five people, because of ontological defence of the innocent.
But you clearly should kill him for million people, because no amount of innocence can outweigh a million people's lives.
It's just in numbers. I cannot say the clear boundary, but it is perfectly clear for all rational people that literal million of lives outweigh one.

And, yes, this analogy is manipulative because it's not one vs five, it's one vs five plus one.

Good grief. When you find yourself being told you are wrong by Robert Heinlein, it might be time to reconsider your priors:

"Are a thousand unreleased prisoners sufficient reason to start or resume a war? Bear in mind that millions of innocent people may die, almost certainly will die, if war is started or resumed."

I didn’t hesitate. "Yes, sir! More than enough reason."

" ‘More than enough.’ Very well, is one prisoner, unreleased by the enemy, enough reason to start or resume a war?"

I hesitated. I knew the M. I. answer — but I didn’t think that was the one he wanted. He said sharply, "Come, come, Mister! We have an upper limit of one thousand; I invited you to consider a lower limit of one. But you can’t pay a promissory note which reads ‘somewhere between one and one thousand pounds’ — and starting a war is much more serious than paying a trifle of money. Wouldn’t it be criminal to endanger a country — two countries in fact — to save one man? Especially as he may not deserve it? Or may die in the meantime? Thousands of people get killed every day in accidents... so why hesitate over one man? Answer! Answer yes, or answer no — you’re holding up the class."

He got my goat. I gave him the cap trooper’s answer. "Yes, sir!"

" ‘Yes’ what?"

"It doesn’t matter whether it’s a thousand — or just one, sir. You fight."

"Aha! The number of prisoners is irrelevant. Good. Now prove your answer."

I was stuck. I knew it was the right answer. But I didn’t know why. He kept hounding me. "Speak up, Mr. Rico. This is an exact science. You have made a mathematical statement; you must give proof. Someone may claim that you have asserted, by analogy, that one potato is worth the same price, no more, no less, as one thousand potatoes. No?"

"No, sir!"

"Why not? Prove it."

"Men are not potatoes."

The value of a human life is not "somewhere above five other lives but definitely less than a million lives". The statement is incoherent in the face of it.

It is immoral to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, no matter the gains to be made by doing so.

Grey Wolf

[StragaSevera]

Utilitarianism is a perfectly defensible ethical philosophy, but it's definitely not the be-all and end-all of ethics, and it's a bit weird to pretend there aren't other perfectly defensible schools of thought.

If we are talking about small numbers, like five people - absolutely.
If we are talking about the whole world being blown up?.. Nope.

Good grief. When you find yourself being told you are wrong by Robert Heinlein, it might be time to reconsider your priors:

Sorry, but if an argumentum ab auctoritate is valid for you, then you need to reconsider your thinking.

It is immoral to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, no matter the gains to be made by doing so.

Yes. And you need to make an immoral choice, sacrifice your sense of morality. Your feeling of "I did bad things", your future in the psychiatric clinic does not matter when we are talking about 1 000 000 people getting to live.


I really wonder, why people don't understand that refusing to sacrifice an innocent life automatically means that you lose in any hostage situation. If you are not willing to sacrifice the hostage's life for ANYTHING, then you are obliged to, for example, make suicide on the spot if an enemy says so. Because even if you are trying to rescue them instead of complying to the demands and shooting yourself in the head, you are endangering them more - and, therefore, you are willing to make a sacrifice.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sorry, but if an argumentum ab auctoritate is valid for you, then you need to reconsider your thinking.

And if all I had posted was that statement, you might have a point. But I didn't. I posted an argument. That happens to have been written by someone broadly recognized as not the finest moral writer of all time. And yet he still had you beat. People are not potatoes, and you reducing them to such ends up looking like the most ridiculous mathematical equation of all time (5V < V <1000000V).

Yes. And you need to make an immoral choice, sacrifice your sense of morality.

Well, that's at least going to shorten this conversation. There is no point in trying to explain morality to someone that'll just toss it out the window when it is inconvenient.

GW