For lastvoyages: Fourth Casefile [Voice]

[cannibalmind]

[private]
Addendum to file on Ms. Lua Klein:

Comments

[r_d_olivaw]

[The handsome red-haired man appears human. He was designed very carefully to do so. Most do not take the time to observe that his facial expressions are not quite instinctive, that the micromotions are too precise and do not vary. But it would take a very close observer indeed.

He's taking the manifestations on his vis-screen without much reaction, however.]

Define evil.

[cannibalmind]

"Evil. Evil is defined as extreme and willful violation of a society's mores or personal rights, whether from apathy, extreme self-interest, irrationality or fanaticism." He's watching the newcomer closely, his curiosity piqued.

[r_d_olivaw]

Is it a purely social phenomenon, then? If two societies meet and two individuals interact with one another according to their own ways, which of them is evil? Is evil that does no harm worse than damaging behavior that is societally acceptable?

Please pardon the academic interrogation; I am interested in psychology, you see. Observing your communications network through this interference has been intriguing.

[cannibalmind]

It is not a purely social phenomenon; there is a certain area of overlap between the various cultural definitions of morality where consensus, and a core morality, can be found.

I am not certain that behavior that does not harm another can be defined as evil. It certainly has in the past by certain moral outliers such as the Catholic church, which due to its political ties condones murder in many circumstances, but condemns homosexuality.

private

[stopthat_destro]

I've always loved that quote.

It's interesting, really. Those of us who do act, who try to change things, make them better, are often punished for it by being brought here.

private

[cannibalmind]

Ah, but it is not our aims but our methods that they protest. Or at least, that is the party line. In reality many who claim to stand for "good" actually stand for the status quo, ad they are desperately protective of their precious routines. They used to burn both scientists and scholars because of this. Now they imprison us.

[shortsghtedlove]

I've long since come to the conclusion that arguing morality is a useless thing to do while here. After all, if I reject being told that my moral code is wrong, there's no point in arguing theirs is, is there? [That's just more trouble than it is worth.]

And I don't see much of a point in your question either. Without one standard for morality neither evil nor apathy to it can be argued. [Also, the quote is from a human. That just says everything :|]

[cannibalmind]

Mmmmmhmmmm. Well.

If you see the discussion as pointless, then why are you engaging in it?

[shortsghtedlove]

Giving you a warning. And who knows, perhaps you come with something mildly interesting after all.

[cannibalmind]

I do not find such discussions futile, as they offer insight into the minds of those who answer. Both those who actually address the question and those who attack its value. [He sounds amused.] Thus it is not my statement but the reactions to it that are of interest. Your own included. [A delicate little chuckle.]

[needsaccordion]

...Apa-whosis?

...Disorganwhatis?

[Pony headtilt]

You sure are a funny pony.

[cannibalmind]

....

Am I, then? [BRB, checking his breakfast for signs of intoxicants]

[needsaccordion]

There's nothing wrong with being a funny pony. You could turn it into a song.

Apaaa-whooossis

Disorgan...whatsis

Words and musts-es..

Things I dooooo..

[What's eerie is just how much of a blues singer she sounds like.]

[cannibalmind]

[It's. Still. There. He rubs his eyes, then shrugs and reaches for his pastels, intent on drawing the creature while he can.]

You are, if I perceive correctly, a singing pink pony.

[impure_tale]

So you are implying that this place, which offers Inmates second chances, ought not to offer those to other persons as well.

[cannibalmind]

That is a quite interesting interpretation, but no. What I am observing, quite bluntly, is this: those Wardens who ignore evil or are guilty of it themselves are in a poor position to teach morality to others.

At any rate. Presumably the Barge exists for the reasons stated: the rehabilitation of Inmates. If the Wardens require rehabilitation as well, then what is the difference between us, aside from power and privilege that may well not be deserved?

[impure_tale]

If we're talking strict definition, then there's an enormous difference: You died with your evils on your head. An Inmate comes here not after committing one such act of apathy and having judgment passed upon them by individuals such as yourself. They die, after perhaps a lifetime of such indiscretions with no further recourse to correct such behavior. If you wish to view it from a religious standpoint (I choose not to, myself), then it is dying with one's soul unclean. Had one not been chosen to come to the Barge, one would go on to whatever it is that happens after death. For some that likely means Hell. The Barge is the alternative.

A Warden, in most all cases, is alive and standing nowhere near such a crossroads. When they are they shall have their turn.

Being guilty of a crime does not make you completely incapable of helping other people, no more than it makes you incapable of walking upright like a person should.

[cannibalmind]

Then you do not argue for the moral superiority of those who claim to be our moral guides. An excellent technical explanation, but still it begs the question: why the pretense that Wardens are any "better", more moral, more worthy of luxuries and freedoms, than we? Being morally compromised in general opinion may not completely eliminate one's capacity to guide another, but it certainly does not leave them in an optimal position.

[private]
Has it escaped your attention that my Warden plans to assist in the extermination of all human life on her version of Earth?