I think there is alot of room for interpretation here. I would argue that the Dresden verse has good and evil in the same sense that the real world has real good and evil. Regardless of fictional universe or no, Good and Evil would be manifestations of logic: not forces that exist independent of reason. I think this is totally in line with the alluded WOJ, especially since I think Jim was simply positing that he views good and evil as real things. Not that the DV has some separate standard for morality.
I interpret it the exact opposite, though I dont know that I have any more or less evidence of that.
To double check, this is the WOJ (abridged) that we are both talking about?
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks.
And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.
Which exist. It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part.
Jim
There is also this one, that is far more vague, but still relevant.
As for violating the laws of magic themselves turning you good or evil, well. There's something to be said on either side of the argument, in the strictest sense, though one side of the argument is definitely less incorrect than the other. But it's going to take me several more books to lay it out, so there's no sense in ruining the fun.
As for objects, I think we need to define what we mean be intelligence. A computer AI has a certain level of intellect, in the sense that it reacts in a programmed manner to various stimuli. But my computer does not have self-aware free will. I view the "actions" of things like the black staff simply as programming that appears to be "intelligent." Same with the Mantles. So far as I can tell from the series, the mantles are just set-in-place forces that influence the possessor. Based on certain dialogues I will not delve into much since this is the non-spoilers section, I would argue strongly that events at the end of ghost story IIRC implied heavily that the Mantles do not have the power to strip free will from the user. Although as I read this back to myself I am thinking we are on the same page actually? (so far as objects I mean)
Agreed, the definition is the key. And to that note, lets avoid the term Free Will whenever possible, because that is a whole other example of the DV usage having more specific metaphysical implications (Mab has as much Free Will as any Human, by RL philosophic definitions, but specifically does not have the DV Metaphysical Superpower where mortals' Choices are literally creating and defining reality, to the point of spawning the splinter-universes of the Multiverse.
As far as the Mantles are concerned we'd absolutely need to discuss Cold Cases to address that. Have you read that one?
The way I see it there are 4 levels:
Mortal - DV specific, you have a Soul and Free Will and can therefore defy the otherwise Deterministic cause-effect chain of a given universe.
Personhood - Has self-awareness, independant thought and personality and
Agency as an autonomous being.
Animal-level awareness - Has some basic drives and survival-level opinions about a given situation, but is not a reasoning being in it's own right
Tree-level Awareness - This is harder because In not sure there's any real-world analog. The idea is that it is Aware of itself and it's own existence (see Gates WOJ below), but it's otherwise a fairly passive trait, it takes no actual, independent Actions, it's still just a Tool. The only reason I include this is the WOJ below. I expect the average Genus Loci to start off at this level, though our one example certainly seems to have surpassed that, but it's a special case in several ways. But in general this always seemed mostly just an extension of the Animism idea that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence/Soul.
2015 Grid Daily interview
The Gate seems like something that, if it didn’t start with a consciousness, would develop it over time. Is that the case?
It probably is, but the consciousness of an inanimate object like that is mostly like that of a mountain. “I AM HERE.” And it’s just increasingly aware of its here-ness. The Gate actually exists very differently than what Harry saw, but that’s how Harry has to interpret it because it’s far out in the Nevernever. Your mind has to put things into terms it can understand or you go squirrely. Harry’s got a very good mind for reducing things to simple ideas. Which most of the Senior Council would say with a roll of their eyes.
I think the idea that is clogging this conversation is the debate between whether morality in the DV is simply a consequence of logic or not. It seems to me that the opposite opinion implies that good and evil in the Dresdenverse are like weather events. However I think these definitions are incompatible. Ethics is supposed to describe how a being is supposed to act. If it is a force like gravity, then defining it as Good or Evil would render the entire definition pointless.
This is likely going to be a philosophic rabbit-hole, but lets give it a shot. I'd start by arguing that matters of Good and Evil are fundamentally about Morality, which is distinct from Ethics. Ethics are, to my mind, the attempt to
approximate Morality using Logic; Logic being theoretically more universal and/or communicable than Morality which I see as more on the Emotional side in that it tends to defy the Definitions and Quantification that Logic and Ethics are built on. But it will inevitably break down when applied to the "Good and Evil"; Id argue that the attempt to apply Ethics to questions of Mortality is what leads to things like the Inquisition, the stereotype Self-righteous Paladin, or most any "The Ends Justify The Means" arguments. Also, as you say, Ethics are about describing how a being is supposed to
Act, specifically, so it innately ignores the other half of the equation with is the Motivations behind a given action.