White Court: emotions

[Fcrate]

Just the usual stuff asocial people do. Smoking outside when I want to open my windows and making too much noise when I want too sleep. I won’t send my cats to kill and eat him, it might poison my cats.
You are not supposed to agree with all Harry’s moral choices. It would make a boring book. But I can sympatise.

Cats can eat anything and survive. I have like nine hungry young kittens that can eat a whale. I can send them over to backup your cat.

I really don't care about Harry's moral choices.  I just wouldn't want him for a neighbor. 
I'm glad you have a proper appreciation for the welfare of your cat.

Unless someone broke into your house or jumped you on the way home from work. Now you'd absolutely love to have him around, eh?

[morriswalters]

Unless someone broke into your house or jumped you on the way home from work. Now you'd absolutely love to have him around, eh?

Nope, still don't want him as a neighbor.  Where does the Brighter Future Society stand?  Where Harry's boarding house once stood, does it not.  His landlady and other neighbors had to flee for their lives because Harry lived in the basement.  And the possibility of being attacked by fire is first brought up in Turn Coat.

[Ananda]

Not surprising because the word evil is all about emotion. It is about empathy and fear. Without emotions the word evil has no meaning.But the word evil is about value judgements. You assign value to what is good and you judge evil what is threatening good.

But *you* were the one who said it is all very logical.  Are you a politician? 

If you create too much distance the words good and evil become meaningless.

Wot? I said it’s a combination of evolutionary biology, chemical reactions, and circumstances. I.E. a subjective experience only “real” like a sunset because of perspective (since the sun doesn’t actually set, it just spins and follows its orbital trajectory). Also, each perceiver’s perceptions are different, so, while a great deal of overlap exists because of shared biology, true understanding of another’s experience doesn’t quite exist and even shared broad concepts are wobbly.  But, objectively, none of it is actually how things are because things just *are* (or are not (what’s the sound of one boddisattva clapping? Om mani padme ho hum?)).

On that note, I think we may be talking past one another anyway. This format doesn’t make it easier.

Our first cat ate everything that came out of a tin and was labeled cat food. Our current cats only eat a few things and we have tried everything on the shelves. We humans here only eat free ranged meat but cats....

Have you tried tundra or carnilove cans? They’re pretty expensive, but very high quality. It’s funny what different cats will love. One of our cats shared breakfast with my husband every morning for years because she loved the little swedish style pancakes (plätter) he’d have with a spoon of jam and gladly finish anything sweet left on his dessert plate. Our cat now has no interest at all in his breakfast, but goes crazy for croissants if I buy one to coffee from the bakery downstairs and eats about a quarter of it. She’s also fond of camembert. She sticks her nose up at the cat food our previous cat used to love, too. She has a savoury tooth to the other’s sweet.

[Arjan]

But *you* were the one who said it is all very logical.  Are you a politician? 

Emotions are a product of human evolution. The moral positions can not be understood from a simple logical position because they are contradictory and lack simple logic but they are logical in the sense that they are a result of human emotions shaped by evolution. They make sense in that context even if they do not seem to make sense. There is logic in emotions.

Wot? I said it’s a combination of evolutionary biology, chemical reactions, and circumstances. I.E. a subjective experience only “real” like a sunset because of perspective (since the sun doesn’t actually set, it just spins and follows its orbital trajectory). Also, each perceiver’s perceptions are different, so, while a great deal of overlap exists because of shared biology, true understanding of another’s experience doesn’t quite exist and even shared broad concepts are wobbly.  But, objectively, none of it is actually how things are because things just *are* (or are not (what’s the sound of one boddisattva clapping? Om mani padme ho hum?)).

Each of us builds a description of reality inside his head. Some of those theories just work better.

On that note, I think we may be talking past one another anyway. This format doesn’t make it easier.

Probably true.

Have you tried tundra or carnilove cans? They’re pretty expensive, but very high quality. It’s funny what different cats will love. One of our cats shared breakfast with my husband every morning for years because she loved the little swedish style pancakes (plätter) he’d have with a spoon of jam and gladly finish anything sweet left on his dessert plate. Our cat now has no interest at all in his breakfast, but goes crazy for croissants if I buy one to coffee from the bakery downstairs and eats about a quarter of it. She’s also fond of camembert. She sticks her nose up at the cat food our previous cat used to love, too. She has a savoury tooth to the other’s sweet.

Never tried those, I would have to order them online.

[Ananda]

There is logic in emotions.

If you change that to predictability or pattern, then I’ll agree completely. An obvious example is taken from the headlines; fear allows for control. Get people scared and a certain percentage will go along with anything. Bypassing reason by stirring emotions is a predictable and easily accessible form of control currently being used to great effect. Various studies have shown this and it’s predictability has been weaponised.

I’d say that logic steps can be created to exploit these things, but the fear et al aren’t, in themselves, logical, just predictable.

In summation, those pesky vampires aren’t, by necessity, bad guys or whatever you said, for eating. In fact, it might be unethical to not allow them to eat at all. I think the standard of judgement would be in the details of the treatment of their food sources, thus full circle to my initial comment paralleling the human relationship with other animals.

Now, we ought to co-author a paper for a philosophy journal exploring the ethics of refusing vampires food.

Never tried those, I would have to order them online.

We order our cat’s food online as the prices are much lower than buying off the shelf and, if you spend 500kr on the site we use, the shipping is free.

[morriswalters]

I've spoilered this because I'm really talking to myself.

(click to show/hide)

In summation, those pesky vampires aren’t, by necessity, bad guys or whatever you said, for eating. In fact, it might be unethical to not allow them to eat at all. I think the standard of judgement would be in the details of the treatment of their food sources, thus full circle to my initial comment paralleling the human relationship with other animals.

This truly begs the question of Harry's ethical position vis a vis the Reds, upon who he committed genocide. As a sentient being being eaten isn't really on my agenda, and anything that tries, will pay if I can arrange it. In a real sense evil is meaningless in that context. 

Harry's world has a very Christian ethic, evidenced by this passage from the fight at the pyramid at Chichen Itza

“False gods!” she cried, her blue eyes blazing as she stared at the Red King and the Lords of Outer Night. “Pretenders! Usurpers of truth! Destroyers of faith, of families, of lives, of children! For your crimes against the Mayans, against the peoples of the world, now will you answer! Your time has come! Face judgment Almighty!”

Obviously God has a point of view, the Red's were evil, and they had to pay when the check was presented.

In that context the Whites and the Reds are evil because they  express choice, they know their prey is sentient.  Oh yeah,  and the private property of a wrathful God.   The difference between Thomas and Lara is that Thomas cares and struggles against what he is.  It's a narrow hair and JB splits it.

Good luck on your search for cat food, I had three lovely cats and they drove me crazy in a very fun way.  I miss them.

[Arjan]

If you change that to predictability or pattern, then I’ll agree completely. An obvious example is taken from the headlines; fear allows for control. Get people scared and a certain percentage will go along with anything. Bypassing reason by stirring emotions is a predictable and easily accessible form of control currently being used to great effect. Various studies have shown this and it’s predictability has been weaponised.

I’d say that logic steps can be created to exploit these things, but the fear et al aren’t, in themselves, logical, just predictable.

In summation, those pesky vampires aren’t, by necessity, bad guys or whatever you said, for eating. In fact, it might be unethical to not allow them to eat at all. I think the standard of judgement would be in the details of the treatment of their food sources, thus full circle to my initial comment paralleling the human relationship with other animals.

Now, we ought to co-author a paper for a philosophy journal exploring the ethics of refusing vampires food.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEPkIeEaxT8

Really I do not expect the cows to offer themselves for food. I am totally OK with cows refusing it. 

We order our cat’s food online as the prices are much lower than buying off the shelf and, if you spend 500kr on the site we use, the shipping is free.

[Ananda]

I've spoilered this because I'm really talking to myself.This truly begs the question of Harry's ethical position vis a vis the Reds, upon who he committed genocide. As a sentient being being eaten isn't really on my agenda, and anything that tries, will pay if I can arrange it. In a real sense evil is meaningless in that context.

I've been saying that there is no such thing as evil, good, bad, or otherwise *objectively* for a bit now and even said I don't think free will as we typically think of it even exists. Of course, the subjective experience is something different, though only "real" in the same way that the sociological phenomenon of "definition of situation" is real (where you, for example, see someone wearing a lab coat and decide they have medical authority and so grant them that authority even if they don't have any medical training). It's not the true situation, but, for one acting under that thought process, it becomes the true situation.

Further, I'd say that sentience is not a hard line binary; either you're exactly like us or you're not sentient. I'd express it's more of a slope and we're only at the top of it because we've created the measurements. However, even by our own measurements, all other mammals, birds, even fish share the same biological structures. We all evolved from the same sources, after all and, the closer another animal is to us, the closer they are to us on our self-determined scale. Of course, it's easier to see everything as binary as that removes all pesky complications like thinking about how we, as a species, interact with other species.

It's a good question about the genocide. You should start a discussion about the ethicalness (is that a word?) of said action.

Harry's world has a very Christian ethic, evidenced by this passage from the fight at the pyramid at Chichen ItzaObviously God has a point of view, the Red's were evil, and they had to pay when the check was presented.

But, all characters in the books have a point of view. Each one is just expressing their nature or desires through thought and action (or inaction). To say that, because one of the faeries or magic beings proclaimed something makes it the dominant viewpoint might be going a bit far. Mab takes plenty of action, judges and so in the books. It doesn't follow that the world they live in therefore has a Mab ethic. Neither does it follow that it has a christian ethic because of the pronouncements of those characters. It only demonstrates their particular point of view.

The difference between Thomas and Lara is that Thomas cares and struggles against what he is.  It's a narrow hair and JB splits it.

I'd say there is no difference in the end. And, why would one struggle against being who they are? That's a common theme in literature to be certain, but, in practice, it's just self-torture. And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.

I had three lovely cats and they drove me crazy in a very fun way.  I miss them.

Aww. We lost two cats within a month of each other a few years ago. It was really terrible. You ever think about getting a new kitty?

[morriswalters]

It's a good question about the genocide. You should start a discussion about the ethicalness (is that a word?) of said action.

I think not.  There is no real ethical question.  It a riff off the idea of the environmental costs of killing off apex predators.  They died for the turtlenecks.  And frankly I liked the vamps better.

But, all characters in the books have a point of view. Each one is just expressing their nature or desires through thought and action (or inaction). To say that, because one of the faeries or magic beings proclaimed something makes it the dominant viewpoint might be going a bit far.

In the Dresdenverse they seem to have a pretty dominant position but ?shrug/?

I'd say there is no difference in the end. And, why would one struggle against being who they are? That's a common theme in literature to be certain, but, in practice, it's just self-torture. And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.

You pretty much shut off cruelty didn't you?  It falls on the same line as evil.

[Ananda]

You pretty much shut off cruelty didn't you?

I don't understand what you're asking here. Could you rephrase it or elaborate, please?

[morriswalters]

I've been saying that there is no such thing as evil, good, bad, or otherwise *objectively* for a bit now and even said I don't think free will as we typically think of it even exists.

And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.

This is true in the real world, it isn't true in the Dresdenverse.  In the real world morals are a social construct, if that is true then cruelty lies on the same line as evil as a social convention.    So if society imposes a framework that we have to live within, it can't be cruelty within that context.  That may change over time. IMO.  YMMV.

In the Dresdenverse JB has picked his ground and described evil as an absolute.  In that world cruelty is defined against that absolute.  And I'll grant you, that  ground is shifty, twisty and sinkhole ridden, not to mention warped and woofed.

Now that I have made this as clear as mud perhaps I should quit while I'm not too far behind.

[Arjan]

A lot depends on how you look at it. The red court sees themselves as a separate species for a reason. It is just the same reason we see ourselves as distinct from cows, it makes it easier to kill and eat them. That is why Arrianne continuously has to repeat to herself that we are cattle, because she was born human.

We do not have to buy into that story. We don't have to see ourselves as an inferior species only usable as a food source (and paradoxically also the stock they recruit from).

There is an alternative story that makes more sense. Ask Susan and her friends. The red court is an infection. The infected can actually do two things. They can remember who they are and try to live with it and protect the rest of humanity against this infection.

Or they can give in. Forget who they are, see themselves as different and as a rabid dog they can kill and eat uninfected humans and spread the disease.

We have rules for that even in our real world. If a tuberculosis patient refuses treatment and is infectious he is locked up and treatment is forced in the name of public safety.

You can extrapolate from that in case dangerously infected humans band together in secret societies to eat, infect and enslave other people. What Harry did was not genocide, it was a public health measure. Only the terminally ill were killed anyway, the rest was saved from a dangerous infection they were fighting all the time.

[morriswalters]

The red court is an infection. The infected can actually do two things. They can remember who they are and try to live with it and protect the rest of humanity against this infection.

And thus we go full circle.

The difference between Thomas and Lara is that Thomas cares and struggles against what he is.  It's a narrow hair and JB splits it.

Putting that aside. I personally don't care how the Reds might see me.  I see them as apex predators. But a wolf attacks the herd at it peril.  JB brings in good and evil.  I don't need it.  Being a narcissist it's all about me.  I could kill off the Reds with absolutely no tugs on what little conscience I possess.  In the same way I would kill a Black Widow.  If they didn't want to die they should have chosen other victims.  Like cows.

I still liked them better as antagonists.  The Fomor(or whatever) leave me unexcited.  Turtlenecks.  I had bad flashbacks to 60's fashion nightmares.

[Fcrate]

I personally don't care how the Reds might see me.  I see them as apex predators. But a wolf attacks the herd at it peril.  JB brings in good and evil.  I don't need it.  Being a narcissist it's all about me.  I could kill off the Reds with absolutely no tugs on what little conscience I possess.  In the same way I would kill a Black Widow.  If they didn't want to die they should have chosen other victims.  Like cows.

I still liked them better as antagonists.  The Fomor(or whatever) leave me unexcited.  Turtlenecks.  I had bad flashbacks to 60's fashion nightmares.

You nailed it. While I don't necessarily see them as evil, I'd kill any vamp that attacks me, or that I see attacking other humans and I'd be the good guy. Its considered taking care of my fellow humans and protecting my own self interest. Again, its the "us and them" philosophy. We do the same to cannibals and no one calls us the bad guys for it. Just because they can only eat humans doesn't mean that we should allow them to do it.

[KipIngram]

In summation, those pesky vampires aren’t, by necessity, bad guys or whatever you said, for eating. In fact, it might be unethical to not allow them to eat at all. I think the standard of judgement would be in the details of the treatment of their food sources, thus full circle to my initial comment paralleling the human relationship with other animals.

This is a thought I've had at times.  The only way to flat out condemn the vampires is to take the position that they are less worthy of life than humans.  Once you accept that premise, then the whole issue is easy - down with the vampires, period.  But things become much more complex if you start out with the premise that all sentient, thinking beings are equally worthy of life. 

For that matter, even presuming that sentience makes a difference isn't a given - I do kill bugs that come into my house, but even as I do it I generally don't "hate on them" - I recognize that they're just "trying to get by in the world."  You really can't morally judge an organism or species for trying to survive.

Now, that said, the methods employed by the majority of the vampires we see in the Dresdenverse aren't kosher - even the ones that attempt to preserve the lives of their prey most often hold that prey if not in overt captivity then in a "locked in" socioeconomic situation that they can't escape.  The prey is not offered a choice.  Even Thomas's customers at his salon aren't really choosing, because they don't know what's going down. 

The only morally acceptable way to approach all of this, in my eyes, would be for the vampires to come out, reveal themselves, and say "We need <this> and <that> from you - what can we do for you that will convince you to let us have it?"  I.e., a fair market arrangement with both sides fully informed and choosing to go forward.

Short of that, the vampires are behaving in a criminal fashion to one degree or another, and opposing that is perfectly acceptable.  Whether or not that behavior warrants the death penalty really depends on how the specific vampire has approached his or her "feeding process."

Honestly, I would give strong consideration to shaving, say, five years off of my lifespan in exchange for regular attention from Lara Raith for the rest of my life.