Debt to Sarevok

Jelctu · Post by **Jelctu** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 9:45 am

To Sargon

"Terminating someone's life seems to me, in my little ignorant non-utilitarian world, to be a definite measure of control over another."

It mean you owe a debt to anyone in the world cause you can kill all the people you want to kill.

Control on life mean control of action not control of being alive.

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 11:39 am

"Control on life mean control of action not control of being alive."

Ultimately, the decision to end another's existance does in fact control their actions - you prevent them from taking further actions which may be for good or evil. The moment you end that life, you cannot know in any way if their future actions would be for better or for worse - its a judgement call based on probabilities and relative morality.

The protaganist's action to end Sarevok's life - be it a deterministic act of Alundro's Prophecy (or any number of other factors), or one of free will - still results in his inability to take further action of his own free will/fate.

It isn't a massive leap to make the argument that if nothing else, you owe Sarevok an explanation as to why you had to/chose to kill him in a more formative way outside of the heat of battle.

Its easy to pass this over saying that Sarevok knew why you had to/chose to kill him, but that is something you cannot know with any degree of certainty by the very definition of knowledge.

Unless all Bhaalspawns are telepathic, and you ignore the fact the game itself wouldn't go anywhere if the protaganist didn't kill Sarevok, chase after Irenicus or hunt down the last of the major Bhaalspawns and confront Melissan.

But I digress.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:10 pm

Originally posted by Sargon the Blade:
<STRONG>"there is NO DEBT because you had no CONTROL over Sarevok's life"

You mean aside from ending it? Terminating someone's life seems to me, in my little ignorant non-utilitarian world, to be a definite measure of control over another.</STRONG>

Nononooo, this is taken out of context...

That statement was made regarding the time before you met Sarevok (or even knew he existed). How can you have control (not just influence) over the life of someone of whom you don't even know he exists?

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:53 am

My partner thinks this is terrible but....
@Bump@

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Sat Aug 18, 2001 9:18 am

heh...I wasn't going to finish things off seeing as it was getting old and I didn't want to resurrect a dead thread, but might as well make the point I was going to make since someone else did the resurrecting

My posts had *nothing* to do with their content. Ignoring a comma and then following it up with a reasonable defense just made it a wee bit more believable.

So its time for the rook to move to the queen's pawn for the checkmate

It is all about intent.

Utilitarian philosophy relies on knowledge, and it is the assumption that the Solar is asking the question at face value. Just like you cannot know my intent in the case of my posts, you cannot know the intent of the Solar.

This of course can easily be made into a case for paternal-esque deception even before you consider the results of the answer(s). This is not some basic aptitude test the Solar is giving you, he? she? (How about asking the more important question - do Solars have a sex? Do they have sex? What do you call solar babies? A bad movie?) is trying to educate you in being a god.

I hightly doubt Kant, Mill or other utilitarian philosophers (classical or modern) would be so quick in judging the answers in such a manner given the context of the question.

This is, of course, ignoring the whole "good equals right" and "right equals good" problem

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Sat Aug 18, 2001 9:38 am

Whahay!! Here we come. Some sense. How can one apply a certain school(s) set of philsophical reasoning to a god/potentiate-god. Ahh, now I can rest in my coffin.

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Sat Aug 18, 2001 10:33 pm

So, does this mean I am right in assuming it was for my sake you resurrected this thread?

Lucidity is fading, forgive me...

Only to add to the confusion, does this mean Fezek + Xyx = or is it Fezek + Polaris =...

*chuckle*

As I said, lucidity is fading...and intent is a demon I spend many hours chasing foolishly...

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Sargon the Blade ]

pip · Post by **pip** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 6:30 am

Don't Know...but Fezek+Xyx=Fezek+Xyx just as Fezek+Polaris=Fezek+Polaris...hopefully.

This taking that "=" is what we accept it as being and every thing else is constant.

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 8:12 pm

Originally posted by Lorsadan:
<STRONG>Don't Know...but Fezek+Xyx=Fezek+Xyx just as Fezek+Polaris=Fezek+Polaris...hopefully.

This taking that "=" is what we accept it as being and every thing else is constant. </STRONG>

But if we take everything to it's logical conclusion then Manchester United will win the league. This is something

ALL

philsophers since Shankley agree on.