Question about the first law

[Shift8]

Shift8,

If magic is a power source that has an "intelligence", if not conscience, then it is entirely possible that using that power contrary to said source's purposes would have negative consequences.

For instance, and I'm NOT espousing this particular scenario but it fits.

If all magic comes from TWG, and TWG says it's for creation and building, but someone uses it for nefarious purposes, it's entirely possible that TWG ordained that anyone who uses it for purposes other than Building and Creation would suffer.

Thus anyone who uses magic would have nasty consequences for breaking the law, while using mundane means would not have said consequences.

Magic is not intelligent. Its a force, like gravity. IIRC the Dresden files is pretty clear about the idea that magic functions like physics, IIRC Jim has even said similar thing in some of his interviews and talks. Also IIRC the books description so far of why people who use magic contrary to the laws being bad is that they are adversely affected by the intent they had to use to create the magic.....not some esoteric rebound effect.

It has also been implied in the above WOJ that the killing of certain kinds of magical creatures would sensibly be just as bad as killing humans. In the course of these 16 books, Dresden and his colleagues have kill ALOT of people and non-people who sentient enough to warrant consideration. Yet.....none of them have done made yet.

Id go into greater detail of who as killed whom and how many, especially a certain specific character who is not Dresden, but this is not the DF spoilers region.

All of the above aside, having magic being some kind of intelligent force with a apparently completely illogical system of cause and effect would be a massive cop-out plot device.

[Quantus]

Magic is not intelligent. Its a force, like gravity. IIRC the Dresden files is pretty clear about the idea that magic functions like physics, IIRC Jim has even said similar thing in some of his interviews and talks.

Weeeell...Sort of.  He's very specific about that being the mindest Harry was taught, but is also always quick to note that he's on one end of a full spectrum, and that other Wizards often involve more Religion/Faith (the stereotypical Wiccan "witch" probably being the most common example).

Also IIRC the books description so far of why people who use magic contrary to the laws being bad is that they are adversely affected by the intent they had to use to create the magic.....not some esoteric rebound effect.

Another "Well Sort of".  He's very specific that it's an actual metaphysical twisting that is distinct and independent from the normal (and still very present) emotional/psychological effects, and that it is qualitatively different to Kill with a fireball than it is to Kill with a

Also worth noting that, regardless of the relative level of "intelligence" of Magic as a whole, Per WOJ the Dredsen universe is one that very much has an Absolute Good and Evil, innately present on the cosmic level and independent of all the normal Subjectivity arguments.  Since it's been established (per WOJ) that powerful objects (will often) gain some sort of low-level awareness (The Outer Gates and the Blackstaff are both examples).  So even if Magic is not an actual Aware Intelligence like a god-figure might me, they may still have a certain amount of innate guiding...mechanism isnt the right word, but I dont have a better one. I compare it to the Queens Mantles, they require a Host which provides the actual Awareness of the being, but the Mantle itself has enough decision-making capability to identify it's next host, as well as override the Will of the host when it feels the need to protect itself or its purpose. 

[jonas]

Gotta wonder though, those things gained an intelligence factor after being used by able minds/souls/spirits or otherwise empowered but, could the opposite be true of magic? Could you say, take Mab's power and destroy utterly, cast her into oblivion but, allow the energy, already a part of this world to roam free as an elemental force? after all, there had to be air and darkness before there was a queen of?

[Shift8]

[quote author=Quantus link=topic=49781.msg2282554#msg2282554 date=1499371389
Also worth noting that, regardless of the relative level of "intelligence" of Magic as a whole, Per WOJ the Dredsen universe is one that very much has an Absolute Good and Evil, innately present on the cosmic level and independent of all the normal Subjectivity arguments.  Since it's been established (per WOJ) that powerful objects (will often) gain some sort of low-level awareness (The Outer Gates and the Blackstaff are both examples).  So even if Magic is not an actual Aware Intelligence like a god-figure might me, they may still have a certain amount of innate guiding...mechanism isnt the right word, but I dont have a better one. I compare it to the Queens Mantles, they require a Host which provides the actual Awareness of the being, but the Mantle itself has enough decision-making capability to identify it's next host, as well as override the Will of the host when it feels the need to protect itself or its purpose.
[/quote]

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.

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)


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.

[ITheHellAmFan]

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.

Until you realize that defining Good and Evil, morality, ethics, etc. in such a manner is an incredibly common trope in fantasy.  One need look no farther than Moorecock or Anderson's view of Law and Chaos (and all the things derived from it, including but not limited to Alignment in D&D and the Shards in Sanderson's Cosmere works) to see how this works.  Just replace Law with Good and Chaos with Evil, and you'll get a template for how such things exist metaphysically apart from human reason in the DV.  The real thing clogging the discussion is people getting hung up on the terms Good and Evil and insisting they must adhere completely to various philosophical arguments (that is insisting that they are derived entirely from logic) as opposed to realizing that in the DV at least, that is not the case, and as Quantus stated and as confirmed by WoJ, they do exist as objective metaphysical forces related to but ultimately distinct from mere human ethics.

If you think that is illogical or unbelieveable, then sorry, but the entire Dresdenverse is illogical and unbelievable then.

[Shift8]

Until you realize that defining Good and Evil, morality, ethics, etc. in such a manner is an incredibly common trope in fantasy.  One need look no farther than Moorecock or Anderson's view of Law and Chaos (and all the things derived from it, including but not limited to Alignment in D&D and the Shards in Sanderson's Cosmere works) to see how this works.  Just replace Law with Good and Chaos with Evil, and you'll get a template for how such things exist metaphysically apart from human reason in the DV.  The real thing clogging the discussion is people getting hung up on the terms Good and Evil and insisting they must adhere completely to various philosophical arguments (that is insisting that they are derived entirely from logic) as opposed to realizing that in the DV at least, that is not the case, and as Quantus stated and as confirmed by WoJ, they do exist as objective metaphysical forces related to but ultimately distinct from mere human ethics.

If you think that is illogical or unbelieveable, then sorry, but the entire Dresdenverse is illogical and unbelievable then.

Not really. You cannot assign a concept that is exclusively logical traits as if it is a law of physics while still wanting to treat its like it is ethical in nature. It is a intrinsically untenable and illogical position. Ethics is a "should do or should be" statement. What you are essentially wanting to do is call something by a name that implies a certain thing, treat it as though it is that thing, but then apply rules to it that cannot be logically held by such a  thing.

This would be as silly as creating a concept in your book that is described as being relevant to the story as a "color" (and exclusively visual concept), and then applying rules to it that guide your characters action that are traits that could only be held by a "sound." Since these are mutually exclusive ideas, and just about every action by characters relative to them would be utterly different in nature, it would ultimately be impossible to logically reconcile them.....which would leave you with a plot device so bereft of any reason that it would repeatedly break the story over and over again whenever any reader tried to put 2 and 2 together.

[Shift8]

Addtionally, I do not think the idea of certain magics being a illogical esoteric "bad" "because we say so" has any merit whatsoever in the actual DV. I think both WOJ from before support this idea, and I also think that the entire context of the series supports this idea: that the laws are "supposed" to be in place because they are perceived as being unethical. Not because of some arbitrary bad.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Thou Shalt Not Transform Others

Thou Shalt Not Invade the Mind of Another

Thou Shalt Not Enthrall Another

Thou Shalt Not Reach Beyond the Borders of Life

Thou Shalt Not Swim Against the Currents of Time

Thou Shalt Not Open the Outer Gates

For every single one of these laws, except the first as the WC enforces it, there is a obvious logical reason that doing so would be wrong in the traditional sense. Only the first appears to be bereft of any room for context.

And yet we know from the books that the WC enforces the laws because it views the actions of the lawbreakers is immoral. It doesn't act like it is protecting the law of gravity or some being tainted. Magic is not a Silmaril. We also know the from books that people have been allowed to use magic for killing when it suits the WC.

The bottom line is that the all of the associated characters act AS IF the purpose of the laws is moral. And this is the problem with the current treatment of the first law. They act in illogical fashion. They apply it brutally and without context one moment (as if it were always bad), then make exceptions when it suits them. And this is exactly why I am proposing that the second WOJ is indicating. That the first law does not have a real justification, and is just the WC being stupid and draconian.

[Quantus]

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.

(click to show/hide)

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. 

[Shift8]

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.

There is also this one, that is far more vague, but still relevant.
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.

(click to show/hide)

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.

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.

There is also this one, that is far more vague, but still relevant.
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.

(click to show/hide)

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.

We are referring to those very same WOJ. I dont think Ive read cold cases, but those descriptions of various being categories are incidentally how I would have been defining things anyway. Almost to a tee. So I think we are on the same page there.

I am using the terms ethics and morality interchangeability here. I mean them to mean the difference between actions that are "right" and "wrong" with respect to a choice that can be made. As far as I am concerned, good and evil are the same thing. When a person commits a immoral or unethical act, they are committing evil. Evil here merely being a generalization word for all acts which one might define as immoral.
       Ergo I see morality, good v evil, etc. as a consequence of logic or reason. Emotions here are merely a consequence of perceived injustice or justice. They are not the cause per-se. An action is wrong because it violates moral principles that are evident due to the nature of reality, not because of how someone feels about it. So for a simpler definition would be as such: Reality being what it is, morality or ethics is just and extension of it. Rules of right and wrong exist in this definition as an extension of reason. So if we say for example that human beings have property "X" and we find that this property X gives these humans right "Y" than any creature with free will that acts in fashion that violates right Y without a justification given by some other logical principal say "Z" (say self defense) then this creature or person acts unjustly, immorally, unethically, whatever word you want to use. (we dont have to agree on various morals or my position here, Im just explaining my perspective for clarity)

If the laws of magic are not in place to stop a unjust act, in the sense that their abuse violates the rights of beings which have rights, then the laws themselves would be evil. This is because they would be in place for arbitrary reasons, and would by extension be a violation of the rights of those upon whom they are enforces.

This is why I see a problem with the 1st law, either as applied currently by the WC, or possibly entirely. We know the WC doesn't care about killing in general for "just" reasons, as they do it all the time. They only care about direct killing with magic. They don't care seemingly about indirect killing with magic. And herein lies the rub. The WC could only justifiably outlaw direct killing with magic if the consequences of direct magical killing had effects that either affected another being unjustly or altered the user so completely that it rendered such a user incapable of self control either now or in the future. IE: the user would be committing a crime because they would be knowingly making themselves a threat in the future.

But according to one of the above WOJ, which IIRC was a response to a question about why killing sentient fae is not considered evil (only humans), Jim essentially tells that person that they have come across a inconsistency in the laws. He then goes on to say (and i might be combining some WOJ here) that the laws do not necessarily have anything to do with right or wrong. The other WOJ also basically states that the idea of breaking the laws turning you evil is not the case. He actually states that there is more truth to one side than the other, but given the WC position in the books ANY ambiguity makes their extreme view untenable, and therefore untrue.

To me this implies strongly that the 1st law in particular is simply the draconian over reach of the WC. Not all that far fetched given how the WC generally behaves.

The impression I am getting from other side of the debate here is that the use of magic to kill directly is "bad" basically "just cuz." Not because it causes anyone any real harm etc. But just because in the DV its evil, because the word evil in being appropriated to describe whatever is desired independent of what it usually means.

[Quantus]

We are referring to those very same WOJ. I dont think Ive read cold cases, but those descriptions of various being categories are incidentally how I would have been defining things anyway. Almost to a tee. So I think we are on the same page there.

I am using the terms ethics and morality interchangeability here. I mean them to mean the difference between actions that are "right" and "wrong" with respect to a choice that can be made. As far as I am concerned, good and evil are the same thing. When a person commits a immoral or unethical act, they are committing evil. Evil here merely being a generalization word for all acts which one might define as immoral.
       Ergo I see morality, good v evil, etc. as a consequence of logic or reason. Emotions here are merely a consequence of perceived injustice or justice. They are not the cause per-se. An action is wrong because it violates moral principles that are evident due to the nature of reality, not because of how someone feels about it. So for a simpler definition would be as such: Reality being what it is, morality or ethics is just and extension of it. Rules of right and wrong exist in this definition as an extension of reason. So if we say for example that human beings have property "X" and we find that this property X gives these humans right "Y" than any creature with free will that acts in fashion that violates right Y without a justification given by some other logical principal say "Z" (say self defense) then this creature or person acts unjustly, immorally, unethically, whatever word you want to use. (we dont have to agree on various morals or my position here, Im just explaining my perspective for clarity)

If the laws of magic are not in place to stop a unjust act, in the sense that their abuse violates the rights of beings which have rights, then the laws themselves would be evil. This is because they would be in place for arbitrary reasons, and would by extension be a violation of the rights of those upon whom they are enforces.

This is why I see a problem with the 1st law, either as applied currently by the WC, or possibly entirely. We know the WC doesn't care about killing in general for "just" reasons, as they do it all the time. They only care about direct killing with magic. They don't care seemingly about indirect killing with magic. And herein lies the rub. The WC could only justifiably outlaw direct killing with magic if the consequences of direct magical killing had effects that either affected another being unjustly or altered the user so completely that it rendered such a user incapable of self control either now or in the future. IE: the user would be committing a crime because they would be knowingly making themselves a threat in the future.

But according to one of the above WOJ, which IIRC was a response to a question about why killing sentient fae is not considered evil (only humans), Jim essentially tells that person that they have come across a inconsistency in the laws. He then goes on to say (and i might be combining some WOJ here) that the laws do not necessarily have anything to do with right or wrong. The other WOJ also basically states that the idea of breaking the laws turning you evil is not the case. He actually states that there is more truth to one side than the other, but given the WC position in the books ANY ambiguity makes their extreme view untenable, and therefore untrue.

To me this implies strongly that the 1st law in particular is simply the draconian over reach of the WC. Not all that far fetched given how the WC generally behaves.

The impression I am getting from other side of the debate here is that the use of magic to kill directly is "bad" basically "just cuz." Not because it causes anyone any real harm etc. But just because in the DV its evil, because the word evil in being appropriated to describe whatever is desired independent of what it usually means.

Ah, ok, not that deep of a rabbit hole after all.  Your argument is well stated, but I fundamentally disagree with your base premise, so I dont think we're going to end up agreeing on that part.   

 Though I will say that is sound like you and Maggie LaFey would have agreed on quite a bit, given the statement that the Laws are Evil unless they address/enforce Morality on the populace.

[Shift8]

Ah, ok, not that deep of a rabbit hole after all.  Your argument is well stated, but I fundamentally disagree with your base premise, so I dont think we're going to end up agreeing on that part.   

 Though I will say that is sound like you and Maggie LaFey would have agreed on quite a bit, given the statement that the Laws are Evil unless they address/enforce Morality on the populace.

(click to show/hide)

I always thought that much, but not all, of what we have learned about Margaret was rather vindicating given my indignation ever since book 1 about the first law. Perhaps I am wrong, but I always had the impression that she is seen in a generally positive light. As was mentioned before,  When Luccio was talking to Dresden she more or less admitted that the laws are about power rather than morality.

I dont know if anyone will agree, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the climax of this serious is going to have alot to do with the Laws of magic, Margaret LeFay, and the Outer Gates. Maybe I am just stating the obvious, but I think there is a going to be a massive con-flux of themes here.

[Quantus]

(click to show/hide)

I always thought that much, but not all, of what we have learned about Margaret was rather vindicating given my indignation ever since book 1 about the first law. Perhaps I am wrong, but I always had the impression that she is seen in a generally positive light. As was mentioned before,  When Luccio was talking to Dresden she more or less admitted that the laws are about power rather than morality.
 

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

(click to show/hide)

Just because her stance might arguably have some merit doesnt mean that it had majority support. According to both Luccio and to McCoy those were fringe views that eventually led her to being a Fugitive, a Lawbreaker, and a consort of Monsters. That doesnt really say "generally positive Light" to me.   

[Romulan Cmdr]

The 7 laws are to limit Wizards to a point that things to not devolve into a magical power fight where people are using black magic to gain power over all else.

So, if you kill a human with magic you are setting up a level where you focus on killing magic, that leads to black magics that are very effective at killing people, and roll down the hill we go.

If you go thru each law, it basically boils down into preventing something that leads to black magic or another similar issue 'end of life as we know it'. 

Ethics and morality dont go into it because everyone's thoughts on where the line is drawn between right, wrong and acceptable exceptions is different.

[Shift8]

The 7 laws are to limit Wizards to a point that things to not devolve into a magical power fight where people are using black magic to gain power over all else.

So, if you kill a human with magic you are setting up a level where you focus on killing magic, that leads to black magics that are very effective at killing people, and roll down the hill we go.

If you go thru each law, it basically boils down into preventing something that leads to black magic or another similar issue 'end of life as we know it'. 

Ethics and morality dont go into it because everyone's thoughts on where the line is drawn between right, wrong and acceptable exceptions is different.

Power limitation may very well be the WC's intent, but thats not a good reason for the first law. Not only does it not achieve its goal, its arbitrary.

Side note: everyones opinion regarding practicalities can also be different. Not just moral issues.

[Quantus]

Power limitation may very well be the WC's intent, but thats not a good reason for the first law. Not only does it not achieve its goal, its arbitrary.

Side note: everyones opinion regarding practicalities can also be different. Not just moral issues.

If it we were just talking about Evocation Id agree with you, killing with a grenade or a fireball doesnt seem any different.  But Thaumaturgy is a hole other story. You can kill anyone in the world from anywhere in the world with nothing more than a Name or even a good picture (I swear I recall this mentioned in an early book but Im still looking for the exact quote) though actual hair or blood obviously work better.  Thaumaturgic assassination unchecked is basically Death Note.