Audio

[whattheytellyou]

[Friends Filter - If you think you’re on it, you probably are. Morrigan, Loki, O’Brien, Mark Hoffman, and Eddie Spinola have been added. Per his request, Armand St. Just has been removed.**]

I apologize if I’ve been quiet lately. I had my hands full, what with keeping my inmate from consummating her, ah, marriage during this last flood.

Comments

Filter

[timesbureaucrat]

It depends on the circumstances. Someone who has killed just once might have been driven to it through unusual extremes that are unlikely to happen again. Someone who kills once a week obviously doesn't have the same moral restraint.

But if we're postulating single acts of murder in each circumstance...say, if in one hypothetical scenario a person is being chased by one individual with hostile intent, and the person sets a bomb and kills his pursuer, and in the second hypothetical scenario a person is being chased by forty individuals with hostile intent, and likewise, that person sets a bomb and kills all forty...then there is little moral distinction. And in my view, both are forgiveable. Motive also matters.

I used to think that the difference was that wardens made themselves accountable for their misdeeds, that they could and would acknowledge that they'd acted unethically. But now... [Braxiatel coming on board as an inmate has thrown that theory for a loop. He knows that Brax is *precisely* aware of the ethical ramifications of his actions.]

Filter

[whattheytellyou]

I suppose you're right. It just seems like such a stretch to say that someone can be an inmate for something like...embezzlement or accepting kickbacks, whereas someone else would be a warden despite having committed an act of murder.

It all comes down to accountability, then.

You said "but". Do you doubt that all of the wardens acknowledge when they act unethically?

Switches to [Private] to protect Brax's privacy, even if Narvin's not naming names.

[timesbureaucrat]

I don't know. I do know, however, that at least one of the inmates is very philosophically minded and has always understood the ethics of his actions. Either he's changed since I knew him, or there are some crimes that even personal accountability can't cleanse. Or perhaps knowing that something is unethical and then choosing to do it anyway is worse than being misguided.

[Private]

[whattheytellyou]

It seems to me that being aware when something is wrong and choosing to do it regardless would be worse than acting in good faith.