For lastvoyages: Second Casefile [Written]

Sep 12, 2011 17:50

[Private]Case Study Two: Richard, "Ritchie", Inmate to Will Graham, last name unknown ( Read more... )

doctor is in session, hannibal is a ham, ritchie, getting philosophical, blah blah blah etc., lady murasaki's lessons, will, tell me all your secrets

Leave a comment

Comments 120

majorum_pride September 13 2011, 01:16:56 UTC
[Argh. Cannibal. But argh. Philosophical moral talk. Philosophy makes for grabby hands.]

I'm not a subscriber to group morality. I was taught that each individual should, as you said, form their own morality. Not so that they would follow an empty ideal, or be ignorant of moral character altogether. But beliefs formed through observation, education, and experience hold more significance than those impressed by convention.

Therefore, my moral arguments may be agreed upon. Or they may not be, based upon the fact I'm an inmate. The only reason I have for them to be accepted is for me to exist as part of a community and a social group.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 01:49:05 UTC
Hmmm. Interesting. Do you believe it is necessary then to give up portions of one's personal code in order to be compatible with one's society?

Reply

majorum_pride September 13 2011, 01:57:48 UTC
I believe that depends. A person is an individual, and if stripping that morality compromises what makes that person proud of who they are, then they shouldn't. They should maintain their morality, and use it to the best of their ability.

But if someone is part of a society that they largely approve of, save one or two exceptions, perhaps they can reconsider their perceptions.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 02:45:39 UTC
A deeply thought compromise. The approach interests me. I suppose that it would require constant renegotiation on a certain level, but the same could be said of interpersonal relationships.

Reply


doctor_j_crane September 13 2011, 01:34:16 UTC
Why on earth are you talking about this?

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 01:49:27 UTC
It was on my mind.

Reply

doctor_j_crane September 13 2011, 02:36:27 UTC
Really. Well, you'll be glad to know that we live in a completely morally relative place. So it doesn't matter.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 02:52:47 UTC
My, my my. What a weak attempt to control the conversation through dismissal. It's not very impressive. Perhaps you should stay out of intellectual discussions until you've matured sufficiently to address the topic at hand.

Reply


t_x_unit September 13 2011, 02:21:36 UTC
My reading suggestion was of assistance.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 02:59:36 UTC
It certainly offered me food for thought.

[Private]
Who is this child making a pest of himself in my nice discussion? He doesn't seem to do anything but whine and try to contradict people.

Reply

Private: t_x_unit September 13 2011, 03:10:01 UTC
Doctor Crane, Jonathan. Inmate.

He is intellectually confrontational and predisposed to the use of chemical weapons.

Reply

Private cannibalmind September 13 2011, 03:16:10 UTC
Oh lovely, I've found my Chilton. His arguments are rather weak. He must fall back on chemical weaponry on a regular basis then.

Reply


no_fastolfe September 13 2011, 02:38:53 UTC
Individual advancement, so long as that advancement does not cause another individual to be deprived of basic necessities, is the highest goal of the Spacer worlds.

[Vasilia is not so much defensive as pre-emptively hostile. Her paranoia tells her that everyone must and will disagree and attack her and she addresses them, unconsciously, accordingly.]

It is the spoken and unspoken moral center of us. We will co-operate in our research when the need is dire, and no one of us would allow a fellow Spacer to starve, as it is the surplus of resources that allows our society to thrive, and that infrastructure that we will co-operate to maintain. The fourth principal of this planet you mention, compassion, can surely be understood as 'enlightened self interest', and yet I hear such sentimentality attached to it!

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 03:05:22 UTC
The Japanese are a rather sentimental race, yes. Enlightened self-interest is an interesting redefinition, however. If one's sense of self includes one's interdependence with others, it is I suppose a very logical progression.

[Nope, no hostility here yet. He's too polite.]

Reply

no_fastolfe September 13 2011, 03:08:56 UTC
The more the human race moves beyond need, the less interdependent we need be on one another. Earth is still gripped with a shortage of resources; the taboos and social mores are thick and complex. On a Spacer world there are fewer taboos, and they are more focused on the comfort of the individual.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 03:13:41 UTC
Spacing worlds. Fascinating. I take it, then that you are from a society far more advanced than my own.

I assume that you have a preference for spacing worlds?

Reply


hourglass_twin September 13 2011, 03:15:59 UTC
I return life debts...other than that, my morals aren't terribly firm. I think all can agree that murder is wrong, at least most of the time, but it's hardly practical. It's wrong to bully those weaker than oneself.

That's honestly all I can think of.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 03:24:41 UTC
You have honor. That is respectable, especially if it is fluid enough that it defines instead of confines one.

To be completely honest I think I prefer men of your power to be honorable and to dislike bullies.

Reply

hourglass_twin September 13 2011, 03:46:50 UTC
As do I. Though, of course, even when dealing with one with those qualities, there are things to be wary of.

Reply

cannibalmind September 13 2011, 04:48:18 UTC
Of course. Nevertheless I find the potential for mutual advancement to be worth the risk in this particular case.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up