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 - The Marquis is pleased to be considered someone's friend.

[impure_tale]

I want to see these films.

Filter

[whattheytellyou]

I can't imagine why. They're...

[Hm.]

I have them here.

Filter

[impure_tale]

I somehow imagine, given your description of them, that I would not be especially welcome to view them whilst in the infirmary.

Filter

[whattheytellyou]

Probably not. Though I think some of those newer laptop computers have the ability to play movies. Maybe you could borrow one.

...How are you holding up?

[ichoosefight]

Alive, awake, although slowly losing my sanity at the wonderful image now burned into my brain. I agree, team effort next time.

[whattheytellyou]

Better to imaging me, cockblocking, than the alternative, right?

[ichoosefight]

That's not exactly the image I was talking about. I know Amanda and I know Hoffman and ew.

[whattheytellyou]

Individually, they're not -

...Oh, no. No. No, no no. I'm not thinking about this.

Friend Filter Yay!

[gingerspeedster]

Those are always the hardest questions. But this is my philosophy, and as a superhero, I think it might help you:

Our jobs, us superheroes, is to help people and stop crime. We aren't meant to be judge, jury, or executioner. The number one rule that separates the really good heroes from the ones you keep a leery eye on is that we don't kill. But the only thing that differentiates a murderer from a robber with a gun is which one you give priority to. It only matters to the law and to whoever's in the most danger.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you don't need to judge whether your inmate is better or worse than someone who's only killed, say, two or three people. The important thing is that life has a value.

Filter

[whattheytellyou]

There's so much gray area, Wally. Think about it for a moment. What if a...ah, superhero, kills someone accidentally? Do you write it off as an accident, or are they held accountable?

What if a warden killed someone in self-defense, or as revenge, or any other reason? Is one more or less excusable? Should they be a warden at all if they devalued human life in one instance?

...This is giving me a headache.

Re: Filter

[gingerspeedster]

I think the place to draw the line is when someone dies because you made a mistake, or because you couldn't save them. You're still accountable, but that doesn't make you a killer. Any other reason, that's murder.

Barry always made it so simple. The rules are the rules are the rules and you don't make exceptions, even for heroes. He told me once that there was always another way.

Filter

[whattheytellyou]

So what makes it acceptable for someone to be a warden when they are, by your definition, a murderer?

filter

[whattheytellyou]

She knew the title of hers. That's all. With mine, I found it in a round-about way. I saw one movie, and found out my life was supposedly in the sequel. It was inaccurate, so I found the book listed in the credits. That was accurate.

So an act of torture isn't monstrous so long as there's a reason, regardless of how misguided that reason might be?

filter

[whattheytellyou]

There may well be hundreds of books about you, Loki. Was anything accurate in the ones you did read?

Filter

[timesbureaucrat]

...

That flood seems to have brought out all kinds of horrifying couplings.

As for the philosophical questions... [He smiles slightly.]I don't think humans are as sentient as they like to think, either. But they aren't just animals. A mammal might kill to protect itself or its young, or a pack-mate, or to acquire food--all in response to immediate stimuli. But humans can understand abstract concepts and therefore can kill for those as well. It might be killing to protect people they don't know and have never met, or it might be killing for vengeance, or some disturbed notion of justice. Abstract reasoning is a double-edged sword

Filter

[whattheytellyou]

I don't mean to ask if there's a physical, concrete difference between one murder and forty, but rather a moral one.

In my scenario, at any rate, someone who kills one person has the same amount of murderous intent as someone who kills forty. What is the definitive difference between them, on a moral scale? Should that person who only killed once be held to a lesser standard? Wouldn't one murder suggest they're capable of more, and are thus on an equal plane as the mass-murderer?

I think you're the only one who's at the same loss as I about the methods the Admiral uses.

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

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?