What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[Liquor Box]

I don't really know. It's hard to tell without extra information.

Well then you would be one of the few people who would withhold judgement. I think most people would think that giving the child the candy is the obvious utilitarian way to go.

[RatElemental]

Well then you would be one of the few people who would withhold judgement. I think most people would think that giving the child the candy is the obvious utilitarian way to go.

Adding to this, I'm fairly certain the only ways in which stabbing a child with a sword could have positive utilitarian value would be if you somehow had proof that afterlives existed and proof that the child was destined for a good one, and would inevitably become destined for a not so good one. That, or it's an extreme overpopulation scenario, or other similar limited resources situation, but even then there are surely other options.

Some would argue that the candy isn't a good option either, unless the child understood the concept of moderation, or it was a reward of some sort, etc. etc. etc.

[eilandesq]

It's the difference between Joe McJedi and LUKE SKYWAlKER. The difference between being in service to a deity and being Destined To Great Things (tm).

She was also by far the most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard, as she demonstrated by beating down Hinjo--who she acknowledged as the second most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard--after she had been stripped of her paladin abilities (including, IIRC, losing at least some of the benefits of her protective magic items) and having been seriously wounded by Roy. Quibbling about the meaning of "chosen" is rather silly when talking about the (by far) most powerful member of an order of holy warriors--she may not have been Luke Skywalker, but in terms of relative power to her peers she was clearly the functional equivalent of Mace Windu or Obi-Wan Kenobi. Her swelled head was unfortunate in terms of consequences, but it wasn't completely born of delusion.

[Dr.Zero]

Would I be here if I valued my time? plus it's not like I am forced to answer.
Here is the example I used :


I think the misunderstanding comes from that when I wrote " divided in equal parts with each of them having a right to every- and anything inside their tract but none on the other's" I meant "divided in equal parts between the five of them with each of the five having a right to every- and anything inside their own tract but none on the others'"

Yes, that was the root of my misunderstanding.
The point will be addressed later, together with the one with P1 and P2.

Not exactly. If I am not mistaken, morality is what we (as individuals) use to tell right from wrong and ethics are the study of what "right" and "wrong" are in the fisrt place. Feel free to correct me, philosopy majors (engineering, here).

And when, instead of a single individual, we talk about societies? How do we define morality?

(If my terminology is wrong, feel free to fix it, everyone. From now on I go only with morality, to be safe)

But that is only if one acepts the axiom of "morality is an agreement",

Of course, every system which tries to follow some logic must start from a set of axioms, even if sometimes these axioms themselves are formalization of what we experience in real world.

If I had to express the axiom of mutual agreement, I think I'd write it so: "If all in a group agree that a general behavior is good, then it is good. If they all agree that a general behavior is bad, the it is bad."

Notice that there are cases where there are not defined behaviors (when there is not agreement).

if there are universal rights and wrongs (say "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you" to dig up anold classic) then you are wrong.

Which is a fine axiom, for me.
Which creates the obvious question: "From where these universal rights and wrongs came?"

Because, if they came from something like: "We hold these truths to be self-evident", basically you're saying that the "We" writing that sentence agreed on those facts.

Oh, universal rights and wrongs coming from mutual agreement on them being rights and wrongs, it reminds me of something!


(Hint: talking of universal rights and wrong moves the issue from where they came from only a step further, without resolving it; it's like resolving the problem of how complex and intelligent lifeforms developed on earth saying: "intelligent life is too complex to have developed naturally on earth, clearly aliens came here and created/engineered it"; it just begs the question: "and then who engineered the aliens?")

Well it's nitpick anyway. But it appeared to me that by labelling them "psychos" you diminished any emotional reactions to their dying. kind of like it is always easier to argue for the death sentence if the only criminals you talk about are Joker types.
Again that's just a nitpick.

Well, they think killing without reason should not be forbidden, so they are not so far from the Joker type.
Or, maybe more on the Belkar type.

Correct me if I am wrong : P1 and P2 disagreed with A, B, C, D and E and therefore refused to take partin the society those five were building whichmeans that their eventual fate (death) is irrelevant to the society of A, B, C, D and E and that had they disagreed on, say, the morality of nudity, they would just have had to move to the next island ans start their own society with blackjack and hookers. Is that correc here?

Got the futurama's reference, if you're wondering.

Not here, more in general (more about it later).

You're wrong in this specific case.
The funny thing in that one case, which prompted me to add it in an edit, because I found it so damn karmerrific, was that A,B,C,D,E eventually agreed with P1 and P2. So the society was still a whole (A,B,C,D,E created a subset between the five of them, a subsociety, with stricter rules between them, but it doesn't matter). P1 (and later P2) were killed according to the rules of the society they wanted to belong to: a society where morality didn't include "no killing".

On a general point, anyway (which should reply to the starting question):

So what you are saying is that when people disagree on one moral rule that autoatically split the society in two according to where you fall on the yes/no divide? But wouldn't that mean that after a sufficient amout of questions are raised you end up with everyone being their own society-of-one? That does not sound viable.

Then what is the alternative?

Either they eventually give up on something, realizing some of their moral principles weren't so important, or they fight for their principles (where fighting is in a general sense, maybe breaking up in two groups, or waging a war).

At least, anyway, they know the reason they are fighting.

What is that? It is our old friend the hypothetical example to the rescue!

Spoiler: Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow..

Show

Inside a community it is traditionnal that marriage is set up by the legal guardians of the two spouses-to-be with no input from these two whatsoever and should any of them refuse to go on with the whole ordeal their family is authorized the use of threats of physical violence to make them comply.
Through magic we can divine with perfect accuracy that exactly 78.89% of the population find that perfectly moral.

There is a girl, however who does not (apart from that disagreement she is your typical Dwarf community member and as fate would have it, her clan decided she would marry some naive idiot she has never met. She refuses, they force her at literal crossbow point.

Was it, indeed right, for them to do that?

Uhmm... no?
It was not right nor wrong, by definition, because there was not agreement on it being right or wrong.

This is exactly the whole point.
Utilitarianism here would make a whole lot of a mess of: "But maybe it serves to avoid a war", "But how much is worth war against freedom?", "But what if the result of war would be a better society?", "But maybe...", "But perhaps..."

Eventually some of the listeners will realize these are all empty points.
But who has the power will claim it was in effect the best way to maximize the mysterious utility function, getting a moral excuse: Might makes right.

Mutual agreement? Again, not so much.
Either the two dissident sides find an agreement at a middle point, or one forces another to suck it up, but without moral excuses: Might does at it likes, for sure and there is no way to avoid it, but it doesn't makes it right.

Well they could come from a set of principles like "An action is inherently good if it is done with the intent of maximizing happiness, regardless of what the action actually is."

Which means, more or less: an action is good if who is doing it is in good faith of it being good, according to his subjective criterion.

We can try it, sure. Since it eliminates the problem of computing an utility function equal for everyone, it might work as definition.

Let's see what happens.

So a crazy guy, who hears voices, as long as he is in good faith, is morally a hero, going around killing innocent people. Because he has the intent of maximizing happiness, not his fault if he is completely nuts and unable to do so correctly.

And if I don't agree, and I find it a terrible and erratic system, I'm morally justified in doing whatever I, in good faith, consider fine to take this system down.

And if I'm, I don't know, kind of a nasty guy, I might even -God forbids me- lie saying my intent is to maximize general happiness (whatever it means), while my intent is to maximize my own happiness.

And, oh, my, if I am in good faith I might realize I've no mean to actually know how to maximize the happiness of others.

So, basically, if there is mutual agreement not only on the axiom but even on the definitions of "happiness" for everyone, it might work. Else it is abusable left and right.

A formally correct axiom? Maybe.
A good one? It is not.

Or "some actions are inherently good/evil regardless of consequences, a list follows".

I didn't understand how this works, exactly. To start with: who writes the list?

I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. Their is no high priest of utilitarinism, because the entire point

The high priest is a metaphor for whoever, being in power, can morally justify his abusive decision deferring to a mysterious something. Being it a message from the gods (which, as I tried to hint, must not be necessarily a true message from true gods, but can be just an excuse) or being it: "I've computed this magic function in my mind and come to the conclusion you must suffer for society's sake. Have a nice day."

of any system of morality is to help individuals make their own choices (one of those can, but does not have to, be "defer to authority").

If the whole point is to teach me how to make my own decisions, thank you, but I'm fine already.
After all, to agree or disagree with a morality system, I have to judge it based on my own morality.
Which I have already.
So I don't see the utility to create a system to pick so that it can confirm that my morality is already right.

[martianmister]

Well then you would be one of the few people who would withhold judgement. I think most people would think that giving the child the candy is the obvious utilitarian way to go.

That would be cheating though. I wouldn't dare to take a responsibility like that. Which is why utilitarianism itself is a myth: Because even a forced dichotomy like this is failed to make sense.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That would be cheating though. I wouldn't dare to take a responsibility like that. Which is why utilitarianism itself is a myth: Because even a forced dichotomy like this is failed to make sense.

So you're unable to make choices without having absolute certainty? How do you function?

[Lord Joeltion]

I think some people are overlooking the fact that Ethics was never meant to be a stick with which we measure reality or beat others into submission; rather, Ethics is about how we perceive reality and how do we structure the elements in our lives in relation to a balance between Good and Evil (or wrong from right).

Utilitarianism is a way to perceive reality. A way of solving a problem. Ok, sure. Then so are a lot other schools. But the problem is that those definitions say more about the subjective rationale of the person making a statement than what it truly says about the statement itself.

Take for example the quote "The Needs of the Many...". Sure, an utilitarian person could defend such an idea. But any consequentialist could reach the same conclusion too. So would anyone from a deontological POV.

It's silly to think of Utilitarian Tyrannies, because then we would be talking about Tall People Tyrannies once the whole NBA overtakes the Parliament with their uncanny jumping skills*. The fact that a tyrant excuses himself behind a philosophy says nothing about the philosophy but a lot about the tyrant.

The same applies to people pointing other people's "utilitarianism" without knowing the precise road its mind took to reach that conclusion. I could defend the idea of stabbing a child for utilitarian/consequentialist/kantian reasons OR because I don't give a crap about the kid, lemme stab hypothetical kids all day long! Then again, I could also ask why an Utilitarian is asking me to stab a kid or give him a candy; when there are more pressing matters like overpopulation and such

*I would vote for Shaq

[KorvinStarmast]

*I would vote for Shaq

I'd vote for Charles Barkley.

[martianmister]

So you're unable to make choices without having absolute certainty? How do you function?

I made my choices based on the golden rule and common sense, not the supposed utility of my choices.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I made my choices based on the golden rule and common sense, not the supposed utility of my choices.

You stumble on a murderer about to shoot someone in the head. The golden rule tells you that you would not appreciate other people interfering in your business, so you don't stop him. Common sense tells you that interfering with a crazed gunman will probably just get you shot.

[martianmister]

You stumble on a murderer about to shoot someone in the head. The golden rule tells you that you would not appreciate other people interfering in your business, so you don't stop him.

My golden rule only tell me that I should treat others same way I want to be treated.

Common sense tells you that interfering with a crazed gunman will probably just get you shot.

Sounds about right.

The definition of utilitarianism by the Oxford Dictionary of English is simply “ a doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of the majority”. This could be interpreted a thousand different ways really by many different people.

Yet, my case for Zilsavians and Fsals is denied as an utilitarian choice.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I have already brought up a similar point earlier in my posts. The definition of utilitarianism by the Oxford Dictionary of English is simply “ a doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of the majority”. This could be interpreted a thousand different ways really by many different people.

Although I agree with you that utilitarianism is not a rigid set of laws, please don’t use the OED definition when defining utilitarianism. Once again, utilitarianism is about maximizing utility (which is usually defined as “well-being” or “pleasure”, although what exactly depends on which utilitarian system you use). There can easily be scenarios where well-being is maximized through something that benefits a minority group, as long as those people gain more utility than the majority loses.

[Fyraltari]

And when, instead of a single individual, we talk about societies? How do we define morality?

A society does not have a morality because it is not some kind of hive mind. It has, however, laws and customs that reflect imperfectly the trends of morality within the members of that society. You can condemn the actions of a general, a lord, a thinker or of a hundred of them but you can't judge a society.
You can call their laws and customs wrong however.

Which is a fine axiom, for me.
Which creates the obvious question: "From where these universal rights and wrongs came?"

So, "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you" is fine with you, why? Where did this belief come from? Reason, emotion, what ? Also ifit is universal, it, a priori, comes from the same place everything universal come from. Where does gravity come from again?

Because, if they came from something like: "We hold these truths to be self-evident", basically you're saying that the "We" writing that sentence agreed on those facts.

Oh, universal rights and wrongs coming from mutual agreement on them being rights and wrongs, it reminds me of something!

Emhasis mine. If it is self-evident, it is not up for debate. That is what the word means, "it stands on its own" no explaination needed. They are not saying we agreed on that but we believe thatis simply not negotiable.

(Hint: talking of universal rights and wrong moves the issue from where they came from only a step further, without resolving it; it's like resolving the problem of how complex and intelligent lifeforms developed on earth saying: "intelligent life is too complex to have developed naturally on earth, clearly aliens came here and created/engineered it"; it just begs the question: "and then who engineered the aliens?")

deciding that morality comes from an agreement between parties is just adding a layer between "is this right?" and "what is right?" because how did the parties decided in their own inner self what was their morality?

Well, they think killing without reason should not be forbidden, so they are not so far from the Joker type.
Or, maybe more on the Belkar type.

Yes that is why I wrote that. No one believes wanton murder is perfectly fine. A lot of people believe that murder can be excused, then they murder and they cook up an excuse for themselves if no one else.




Got the futurama's reference, if you're wondering.

Not here, more in general (more about it later).

You're wrong in this specific case.
The funny thing in that one case, which prompted me to add it in an edit, because I found it so damn karmerrific, was that A,B,C,D,E eventually agreed with P1 and P2. So the society was still a whole (A,B,C,D,E created a subset between the five of them, a subsociety, with stricter rules between them, but it doesn't matter). P1 (and later P2) were killed according to the rules of the society they wanted to belong to: a society where morality didn't include "no killing".

On a general point, anyway (which should reply to the starting question):

Then what is the alternative?

Either they eventually give up on something, realizing some of their moral principles weren't so important, or they fight for their principles (where fighting is in a general sense, maybe breaking up in two groups, or waging a war).

At least, anyway, they know the reason they are fighting.

They decide that all anyone can do is to find their own morality and judge actions, both their own and those of others, according to that and make laws according to what most believes to be right.

Uhmm... no?
It was not right nor wrong, by definition, because there was not agreement on it being right or wrong.

You are nothing if not consistent, I can appreciate that.

This is exactly the whole point.
Utilitarianism here would make a whole lot of a mess of: "But maybe it serves to avoid a war", "But how much is worth war against freedom?", "But what if the result of war would be a better society?", "But maybe...", "But perhaps..."

Eventually some of the listeners will realize these are all empty points.
But who has the power will claim it was in effect the best way to maximize the mysterious utility function, getting a moral excuse: Might makes right.

You mean "people would make a whole..."
Also "but maybe a whole lot of people would die...", "empty point".
That is scary. At least I can see where The_Weirdo is coming from.

Mutual agreement? Again, not so much.
Either the two dissident sides find an agreement at a middle point, or one forces another to suck it up, but without moral excuses: Might does at it likes, for sure and there is no way to avoid it, but it doesn't makes it right.

Which means, more or less: an action is good if who is doing it is in good faith of it being good, according to his subjective criterion.

We can try it, sure. Since it eliminates the problem of computing an utility function equal for everyone, it might work as definition.

Let's see what happens.

So a crazy guy, who hears voices, as long as he is in good faith, is morally a hero, going around killing innocent people. Because he has the intent of maximizing happiness, not his fault if he is completely nuts and unable to do so correctly.

Exactly, mentally ill people need treatment and care not judgment or punishment.

And if I don't agree, and I find it a terrible and erratic system, I'm morally justified in doing whatever I, in good faith, consider fine to take this system down.

You would be justified in your own eyes, not necessarily anybody else's. Also I am kinda curious at how you intend to take down a system of morality. I mean the guy who theorized it up is likely long dead by now, it does not have any institutions or enforcers, it is just an idea.

And if I'm, I don't know, kind of a nasty guy, I might even -God forbids me- lie saying my intent is to maximize general happiness (whatever it means), while my intent is to maximize my own happiness.

Lie to whom exactly, also that means that you would be doing things that you yourself would be calling wrong, since in this thought experiment you operate under that partiular system. Trying to disprove a thesis by using a counter-example where you don't use the thesis strike me as questionable logic.

And, oh, my, if I am in good faith I might realize I've no mean to actually know how to maximize the happiness of others.

Here are a few things that, empirically, make people around you happy : be thoughtful, help those in need, love, be polite, don't harm or kill, save people.

So, basically, if there is mutual agreement not only on the axiom but even on the definitions of "happiness" for everyone, it might work. Else it is abusable left and right.

A formally correct axiom? Maybe.
A good one? It is not.

Every human concept can, has and will be abused. Even mutual agreement : it just takes someone charismatic enough to get anyone to agree to something against their better judgment. Or good ol' fashioned peer pressure.

I didn't understand how this works, exactly. To start with: who writes the list?

That's not one I like much, but it is a system that has been proposed, that's kantism, I think? So it is worth mentioning. To answer yourquestion, I dunno maybe they are self-evident ?

The high priest is a metaphor for whoever, being in power, can morally justify his abusive decision deferring to a mysterious something. Being it a message from the gods (which, as I tried to hint, must not be necessarily a true message from true gods, but can be just an excuse) or being it: "I've computed this magic function in my mind and come to the conclusion you must suffer for society's sake. Have a nice day."

And I fail to see why that would be particular to utilitarianism. Anyone in power has to justify their actions anyway or the other if they had to invoke morality, and they veryyyyyyy rarely do, I can't see why your system would be anymore foolproof than anyother to abuse, just replace "magic function in my mind" with "rigged vote", et voilà !

If the whole point is to teach me how to make my own decisions, thank you, but I'm fine already.
After all, to agree or disagree with a morality system, I have to judge it based on my own morality.
Which I have already.
So I don't see the utility to create a system to pick so that it can confirm that my morality is already right.

Cool how does it work? Maybe you wanna try to understand how your own mind decides that and see if you happen to be following a particular system? Or, you know some people are not sure of themselves and would like to find something that appeal to them to help them make a choice.

<Snip>

All of this except for this NBA nonsense. Obviously it is small people that should rule, their blood reach their brains faster making for quicker decision making. And we could replace elections by horse-racing.

[martianmister]

There can easily be scenarios where well-being is maximized through something that benefits a minority group, as long as those people gain more utility than the majority loses.

So, is there a way to measure it up? Or...?

[georgie_leech]

Although I agree with you that utilitarianism is not a rigid set of laws, please don’t use the OED definition when defining utilitarianism. Once again, utilitarianism is about maximizing utility (which is usually defined as “well-being” or “pleasure”, although what exactly depends on which utilitarian system you use). There can easily be scenarios where well-being is maximized through something that benefits a minority group, as long as those people gain more utility than the majority loses.

Such as charities. The usual argument goes, those few dollars you lose can make a world of difference to the people they go to.

[martianmister]

Yes , the person making the decision is measuring what action brings the most utility to the group/society. The philosophy in and of itself has no guidelines in which to measure what maximizes utility. Once again, you are thinking about this the wrong way. It is a philosophy. It is immeasurable, inquantifiable and wholly subjective. If a person decides that what they are doing maximizes utility, than they are making a utilitarian action. If someone else believes that making a different decision that maximises utility and goes through with that decision than they are a utilitarian. If a third person decides that a third option maximizes utility and does pursues that option, than they are a utilitarian. Everyone in this scenario is a utilitarian because they are all doing something which they believe provides the most benefit to the society as a whole, but each of them have different views on what action maximises utility the most.

So, according to your definition, what's the difference between Utilitarianism and Kantianism? Or other schools?

[Fyraltari]

So, according to your definition, what's the difference between Utilitarianism and Kantianism? Or other schools?

An utilitarian would (probably) lie to the murder with a knife asking him where his friend is hiding.
A kantian wouldn't.

Because the utilitarian care about the ends to the detriment of everything else and a kantian cares about the means to the detriment of everything else.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Don’t put too much faith on me in this because I have not studied Kant in depth, so my response might have Inaccuracies. Anyone, Please correct me if I am wrong.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

It basically means you're not allowed to do anything if you think it wouldn't be good if everyone else also did this thing. Therefore, you may never kill anyone for any reason, because you can't say that everyone should always be killing people. You may never lie because if everyone lied all the time then language would be meaningless and society couldn't exist. It doesn't matter why you're killing anyone or why you're telling a lie, just that those things are inherently wrong because you can't make them a universal law.

[Liquor Box]

That would be cheating though. I wouldn't dare to take a responsibility like that. Which is why utilitarianism itself is a myth: Because even a forced dichotomy like this is failed to make sense.

What cheating? What responsibility would you not dare to take? I imagine you take responsibility for refraining from stabbing children every day (every time you see one and don't stab it).

Utilitarianism is not a myth just because it requires us to rely on our judgment as to what the net utility would be.

[Liquor Box]

I made my choices based on the golden rule and common sense, not the supposed utility of my choices.

By your logic, common sense is also a myth, because you cannot measure it precisely.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

So, is there a way to measure it up? Or...?

Not objectively, no. I cannot take out my Utilometer and measure how many utiles an action produces. But you can make subjective judgements for yourself about whether or not an action will have positive or negative utility. Of course, that’s a problem that infects any question over what’s right and wrong; it’s inherently subjective. But, having a moral framework can give one a better starting point for right and wrong.

I’m not trying to say you should be a Utilitarian, by the way (I’m not a big fan of it myself), just trying to provide a better frame of reference for this discussion.

[Noodz]

I'm kinda surprised Hilgya's personality has attracted so much attention, since to me her behavior feels absolutely organic and natural. The keyword here is "relationship".

From Hilgya's POV, Durkon was at fault because while he scorned her love from the top of his moral high horse, he dared not even talk once to her, even if it is to see whether their tryst had bore fruit, so to say. She immediately thinks of Durkon as a scumbag that appears honest and loyal to attract girls (traits highly valued in dwarven society), but once he's had his way with them, disappear unceremoniously.

Of course we readers realize it is Hilgya that pushed Durkon into their night together, and that Durkon has no way to know he has a son and should take responsibility for it. But people are irrational, short sighted and emotional, and like anyone else, all Hilgya can feel is resentment over her lover's apparent abandonment and over being burdened of raising a child alone.

The bottomline is people are more irrational than we realize, especially when it comes to relationships. Having a past relationship that ended in bad terms, i can relate in that without communication, all you are left with is resentment and unfulfilled expectations from a love that did not work, making it very hard to see the situation objectively.

[martianmister]

By your logic, common sense is also a myth, because you cannot measure it precisely.

I said what I do when there is choice to choose. I never claimed that my common sense is some sort of ethical philosophy that based on objective reasoning.

[Dr.Zero]

So, "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you" is fine with you, why? Where did this belief come from? Reason, emotion, what ? Also ifit is universal, it, a priori, comes from the same place everything universal come from. Where does gravity come from again?

Ah! It isn't fine!
A masochist under that rule would be in his rights whipping you.
Fully respecting the "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you".

Jokes aside, who cares from where my morality comes from, actually?
I might care, but I don't.
Others shouldn't care, really, as I don't care about theirs.
It's quarks bumping against each other?
Genetic?
Education?
Fox News?
Meh, it's still all the effect of quarks bumping against each other, after all.

What is the whole discussion's point?
Nothing definitive, nothing that can be measured or tested.
More or less like utilitarianism.
Rivers of words and eventually: "Meh, everyone remains of their own opinion, but maybe the dude in charge thought it was good to abuse his power. So the forced bride was wrong to rebel."

No, wait, this outcome is measurable. And for me is bad.

Emhasis mine. If it is self-evident, it is not up for debate. That is what the word means, "it stands on its own" no explaination needed. They are not saying we agreed on that but we believe thatis simply not negotiable.

They agreed those truths are self evident.
Else they wouldn't even even to state or write it down.
Even more because those points were not so "self-evident" previously.

deciding that morality comes from an agreement between parties is just adding a layer between "is this right?" and "what is right?" because how did the parties decided in their own inner self what was their morality?

It removes completely the layers.
It's: "Rights and wrongs? I don't even care what they are. We define those by ourselves, if we can agree with them. Without needing to think they come from somewhere else."

Exactly, mentally ill people need treatment and care not judgment or punishment.

Treatment and care, I can agree.
But to give treatment and care, you clearly agree they have done wrongs. Even if in good faith, in their nut minds.

Here are a few things that, empirically, make people around you happy : be thoughtful, help those in need, love, be polite, don't harm or kill, save people.

I insist: asking them is the easier way to know, without the need to be empiric.
And it is certainly the only way to be sure.

And I fail to see why that would be particular to utilitarianism. Anyone in power has to justify their actions anyway or the other if they had to invoke morality, and they veryyyyyyy rarely do, I can't see why your system would be anymore foolproof than anyother to abuse, just replace "magic function in my mind" with "rigged vote", et voilà !

Well, rigging the vote of the ones you wish to abuse, might be a bit more complicated.

Cool how does it work? Maybe you wanna try to understand how your own mind decides that and see if you happen to be following a particular system? Or, you know some people are not sure of themselves and would like to find something that appeal to them to help them make a choice.

It might even be interesting, but since utilitarianism is "maximize utility" and "utility" cannot be measured or computed, but it's based on what the same person thinks it is right, it seems to sum up to: "it's moral what you think it is."

Not only I don't see it working as a system to talk about the morality (or how you prefer to call it) of societies, but it appears to go under heavy circular logic even you try to use it for introspection.

(And even if it was of any use for introspection, cool, money spared away from psychologists, but introspection is a thing a debate on "X is justified to do Y?" is another)

[Liquor Box]

I said what I do when there is choice to choose. I never claimed that my common sense is some sort of ethical philosophy that based on objective reasoning.

Great, and I don't think anyone would claim that utilitarianism is wholly objective either. It's just a framework for making morally difficult decisions, within which a person must make subjective (and perhaps common sense) judgments - for example whether giving a child candy or stabbing it will cause more evil/good (or negative/positive utility).

[Liquor Box]

I'm kinda surprised Hilgya's personality has attracted so much attention, since to me her behavior feels absolutely organic and natural. The keyword here is "relationship".

From Hilgya's POV, Durkon was at fault because while he scorned her love from the top of his moral high horse, he dared not even talk once to her, even if it is to see whether their tryst had bore fruit, so to say. She immediately thinks of Durkon as a scumbag that appears honest and loyal to attract girls (traits highly valued in dwarven society), but once he's had his way with them, disappear unceremoniously.

Of course we readers realize it is Hilgya that pushed Durkon into their night together, and that Durkon has no way to know he has a son and should take responsibility for it. But people are irrational, short sighted and emotional, and like anyone else, all Hilgya can feel is resentment over her lover's apparent abandonment and over being burdened of raising a child alone.

The bottomline is people are more irrational than we realize, especially when it comes to relationships. Having a past relationship that ended in bad terms, i can relate in that without communication, all you are left with is resentment and unfulfilled expectations from a love that did not work, making it very hard to see the situation objectively.

I was a little surprised too. Lot's of characters in the comic act irrationally, just like lots of people in real life act irrationally.

But from the first page it appears that Hilgya coincides with a perceived stereotype amongst women. Graustein's post puts it like this:

That doesn't make the Hysterical Woman Whose Interiority We Don't Get To See Chasing Her Child's Deadbeat Dad not an overdone trope that I really hope Rich is going to steer away from. The issue isn't really that she's not a rational person, the issue is if she's a two-dimensional stereotype or not.

As I said, I'm waiting to see how this plays out, but I've seen enough hysterical women written poorly by men to feel justifiably wary when it appears that it might be showing up here, even given how much Rich has improved in writing women.

I don't agree with the objection myself. I think this is one aspect of many of Hilgya's character and history (as evidenced by this thread which derailed to discuss another aspect of her - her apparently forced marriage and apparent murder of her husband), and one that took up only a couple of strips out of the many she has appeared in.

There are many many characters in the strip which match real life negative stereotypes. I don't think that is a problem so long as there are other characters who deny that stereotype - so where you have a Eugene filling the stereotype of a grumpy old man, you have Roy's grandfather denying it.

[The_Weirdo]

(as evidenced by this thread which derailed to discuss another aspect of her - her apparently forced marriage and apparent murder of her husband)

I wish to point out how utterly disturbing and symptomatic it is that a thread asking what women think of a female character got derailed by men arguing that the incredible, unacceptable, undeniable wrong done against her wasn't wrong or all that bad or that she deserved it or... etc.

Makes me wonder what exactly would happen had Rich portrayed a male undergoing that kind of wrong against himself, if there'd be men or women bending over backwards to justify it. Take Redcloak: is there anyone here arguing that, when he wasn't Redcloak yet, he had it coming? And mind that the scale of the damage he caused is by FAR wider, higher and bigger than Hilgya's.

Also makes me wonder what kind of repulsive things we might find out about some posters, were Hilgya a victim of rape instead of a forced marriage (which is usually conductive to rape, but Hilgya happened to be lucky).

Thread title:
"What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?"

Response by several... very much non-female readers:
"She must have done SOMETHING to warrant being forced to marry Ivan."

We all know this is due to her gender.

[Liquor Box]

I wish to point out how utterly disturbing and symptomatic it is that a thread asking what women think of a female character got derailed by men arguing that the incredible, unacceptable, undeniable wrong done against her wasn't wrong or all that bad or that she deserved it or... etc.

Makes me wonder what exactly would happen had Rich portrayed a male undergoing that kind of wrong against himself, if there'd be men or women bending over backwards to justify it. Take Redcloak: is there anyone here arguing that, when he wasn't Redcloak yet, he had it coming? And mind that the scale of the damage he caused is by FAR wider, higher and bigger than Hilgya's.

Also makes me wonder what kind of repulsive things we might find out about some posters, were Hilgya a victim of rape instead of a forced marriage (which is usually conductive to rape, but Hilgya happened to be lucky).

Thread title:
"What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?"

Response by several... very much non-female readers:
"She must have done SOMETHING to warrant being forced to marry Ivan."

We all know this is due to her gender.

First, on males posting in this thread. You say a couple of times in this post that the response was by "men" or "very much non-female readers". That point has come up a couple of times in this thread. When it was mentioned early in this thread, I did a count, and the large majority of posters did not identify as men in their profile (some did, some identified as female, most did not identify themselves as all). I don't think you can say that all, or most, people posting on this topic are men. Not that there's anything wrong with men posting of course - no person should be excluded from having an opinion because of their gender.

Second, just because you have really really really strong views on whether a shotgun marriage can ever be justified, does not mean others aren't allowed to have different views. You can think they're wrong and say so, but suggestions that people with certain views shouldn't be allowed to express them is possibly the most disturbing thing in this thread.

Third, on how people would react if Hilgya was male. You object here to people bending over backwards to justify something seemingly abhorent that happened to a women (shotgun marriage happened to Hilgya). But before that, people bent over backwards to justify something seemingly abhorrent that happened to a man - they sought to justify Hilgya's apparent murder of her husband. Murder and forced marriage are seldom (if ever) justifiable, but people did explore whether either was justified in this case - but its seems you only object to the attempts to justify one of the two, and I wonder if that is because it is you who is being sexist. Also, in real life, in shotgun marriages it was traditionally the man who was being forced to marry the woman - so any attempts to justify shotgun marriages as an institution (which may include Hilgya's shotgun marriage) is actually an attempt to justify men being forced into marriage, not women.

Fourth, in your post you object to the thread going away from the original topic (do you like Hilgya) and discussing forced marriage. But ironically, you have just brought it back to that very topic. The thread had moved past the discussion of forced marriage pages ago. My post, and Noodz's were about the original topic - was Hilgya's portrayal a good one or was it bad because she appeared to reflect a stereotype. My post hadn't commented on the substance or merits of the discussion about forced marriages, so there was no need for you to go into all that in your post. It may be that your post kicks off discussion of the topic again.

[Fyraltari]

What is the whole discussion's point?
Nothing definitive, nothing that can be measured or tested.

Well, I guess that ends the discussion.

[PopeLinus1]

There’s nothing like opening up a thread and seeing a ton of people talking about politics.