Whitechapel - Ethics in a Drowned World Fri, 24 May 2013 05:18:31 -0700 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.4 & Feed Publisher Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123362#Comment_123362 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123362#Comment_123362 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:29:24 -0800 Eddie Current
What are the ethics of a post apocalypse world like the one in FA?

Are they different if you live in Whitechapel with Connor and the others watching over you? What if you're in another town lacking such resources? What if you're a member of the nomad refugees?

How do you survive... and still be able to look yourself in the mirror without feeling like the reflection's accusing you of something? ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123403#Comment_123403 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123403#Comment_123403 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:02:10 -0800 mister hex Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123405#Comment_123405 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123405#Comment_123405 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:27:00 -0800 Fauxhammer
If it's me, I'd do my best to protect my people, if I have any. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123415#Comment_123415 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123415#Comment_123415 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:08:20 -0800 Kosmopolit "How do you survive... and still be able to look yourself in the mirror without feeling like the reflection's accusing you of something?"

I get that now. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123419#Comment_123419 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123419#Comment_123419 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:38:47 -0800 mister hex
The FA's have THEIR OWN MORALITY. They can do anything. They can explode people by looking at them.

The rest of Whitechapel is, as they say, a horse of a different colour ...

Guilt is human and may be dealt with later, if at all. Guilt is a useless, if human, emotion.

(I apologize to Lynn Truss for the profiligant use of commas. And any misspellings on my part.)

EDIT TO ADD- profligate, I meant, although 'profiligant' is a perfectly cromulent word. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123422#Comment_123422 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123422#Comment_123422 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:54:17 -0800 Val A Lindsay II
But just on case, I have cases of whiskey and bourbon set aside for trade. :) ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123437#Comment_123437 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123437#Comment_123437 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:37:14 -0800 Jay Kay
True, and that's probably why the FA's have become the leaders of the group--and also probably why they haven't revealed their powers to the rest of the village (at least I don't think they have--let me know if I'm wrong). If the rest of them found out about their powers and their role in the end of the world, I think it's safe to say that the village would quickly turn into a mob. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123444#Comment_123444 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123444#Comment_123444 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:38:28 -0800 Jon Wake Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123465#Comment_123465 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123465#Comment_123465 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:01:59 -0800 razrangel
Between that op-ed and FreakAngels I've been turning over the good ole maxim "with great power comes great responsibility." On the one hand, you can dismiss it as hackneyed and see it with the sort of derisive recognition that no one can dictate, let alone enforce that responsibility. If someone falls down in front of you and asks you for a hand up and you refuse and simply walk on you can argue that no one can make you recognize the action of helping as a responsibility since there is no consequence to not helping. Furthermore what if that person was sick and you avoided contagion? Or maybe it was a trick and they would have picked your pocket? On the other hand, I see the maxim as an excellent counterpoint to "power corrupts...."

A lot of power or a little power have no bearing on the ethics you accept. Even if you are a fictional character. But responsibilities should be scaled to said power. We, none of us can stop the strife in Israel/Palestine. But we, any of us, can remonstrate someone who defames the peoples of either country with derogatory language. We are the ethics that we practice and if we find instances when it's ok to forgo our ethics then we find it ok to forgo our very identities. If we say today is a bad day, today it's ok to be dishonorable, then we are dishonorable. Ethics simply aren't for sunny days only. They also apply when its raining, or they don't apply at all.

I would submit, however, that the FreakAngels are having to make up their ethics as they go along. There's little institutional memory left in their world and they were young teens when they smashed the institutions that would have given them any fortification against self-doubt and questioning. So while we all make up our ethics as we go along and discover what works from the institutions we know and what doesn't, the Angels only have their gut feeling for what's right and a little bit of what they remember from childhood and from those few people who've survived. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123473#Comment_123473 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123473#Comment_123473 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:50:11 -0800 mister hex
I remember seeing Saving Private Ryan ... and there's a scene where American soldiers machine-gun Germans who ARE TRYING TO SURRENDER and all anybody could talk about was the opening bit and how that Tom Hanks sure can act! Nothing, no commentary and it passed by and you, the audience were meant to understand - they deserved it, those lousy Germans.

... But that happened everyday, in Dubya-Dubya Two - Sometimes, we didn't feel like taking prisoners. Or couldn't. Or whatever. First World War was probably worse. Far fewer cameras around, for one thing. Still, hard to match the ferocity and mendacity of the Last Good War, the Great Patriotic War, as the Russians apparently call it, the war of Captain America punching out Hitler (if only!) and the first and last time nuclear weapons were used in anger.

One does what one has to do.

Then again, does one massacre a bunch of helpless civilians out of pure, coldly logical pragmatic expediency?
Depends, doesn't it? What day is it? Do we feel like taking prisoners or adopting waifs and strays? Or are we pissed off 'cause Jonesy copped it two days ago and we all liked him and somebody's gotta pay for it so it might as well be you, whoever-you-are.

This is why Jesus said "You can't handle ten commandments? Then Rule #1 - Don't Be An Asshole."

(Internet Jesus said the same thing.)

And the Freakangels are only 23 (!). Remember when YOU were twenty-three? (And all you people who aren't yet? get ready to have an adventure.) Twenty-three is, give or take a couple of years, around about the time life gives you lemons covered in shit and expects you to make wine. Which doesn't help the ethical decision making process much. That's the time you have many hangovers and perhaps a few regrettable sexual encounters, if you do it right.

Ethics go out the window on a flying carpet of rationalizations the minute self-interest gets involved. "Too bad I beat up that old lady at the bread riot today. Oh well, at least MY family has food tonight."

To go against that is to go against human nature and more power to you, I say. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123474#Comment_123474 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123474#Comment_123474 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:59:28 -0800 howyadoin Remember when YOU were twenty-three?Yikes. There's a thought to keep me awake at night. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123477#Comment_123477 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123477#Comment_123477 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:41:41 -0800 Paul Duffield
@mister hex
I was 23 last year, and I quite enjoyed it ^_^ ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123482#Comment_123482 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123482#Comment_123482 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:31:00 -0800 Jon Wake Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123504#Comment_123504 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123504#Comment_123504 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:51:35 -0800 Val A Lindsay II
I absolutely agree. Add to that the individual skillsets, i.e. Growing food, building and maintaining machinery, healthcare, etc., a society needs. No one person knows how/has the time to do everything.

But again, this has been shown in FA with the introduction of each character. There is one thing that is special about the Freakangel apocalypse though and it hasn't been revealed yet. Episode 5 of the Freakangels is something I've carried in my head every new episode I read, partially because it's the classic Warren Ellis delivery moment, but mostly because it's the most telling in what has happened to make this world and it may still be happening. LOL/DIES. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123537#Comment_123537 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123537#Comment_123537 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:11:43 -0800 howyadoin Additionally, a robust social network is the best defense you have against the inevitable raiders and scumfucks.Good point. Not an easy thing to maintain, though - here in the "real" world I'm seeing social networks falling apart all over the place lately, as more and more people are losing their jobs, etc. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123575#Comment_123575 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123575#Comment_123575 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:30:01 -0800 PaulGrahamRaven Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123582#Comment_123582 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123582#Comment_123582 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:21:38 -0800 razrangel Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123585#Comment_123585 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123585#Comment_123585 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:32:12 -0800 PaulGrahamRaven
The problem is that I usually end up debating this sort of thing with people who don't know what the term means at all, and hence default to definitions as a starting point. Mental note: Whitechapel has a higher % of non-idiots than reality. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123603#Comment_123603 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123603#Comment_123603 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:06:30 -0800 Val A Lindsay II
I think that if one pays enough attention to history and applies, it's easy to formulate good working ethics. First world society as it exists could fall from a huge calamity like an asteroid or comet strike, but it is pretty unlikely to fall because of the ethics we follow now and actually will right itself a little more easily because of them. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123619#Comment_123619 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123619#Comment_123619 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:30:38 -0800 razrangel Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123623#Comment_123623 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123623#Comment_123623 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:35:35 -0800 PaulGrahamRaven Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123641#Comment_123641 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123641#Comment_123641 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:21:41 -0800 Cyman Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123724#Comment_123724 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123724#Comment_123724 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:27:09 -0800 Val A Lindsay II
Read 'Lord of the Flies'. Kills that 'Innocence' dream right quick. I love 'em, but kids are very blunt in their honesty, naivety and cruelty in my experience. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123762#Comment_123762 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123762#Comment_123762 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:19:43 -0800 kierano
-David Couzens Hoy (cited in the somewhat messy but nonetheless enlightening Wikipedia article)

What he's driving at is that ethics are where the agent (you) has no fear of reprisal for an action, but feels an obligation not to take it.

If you choose not to break the law simply because of fear of reprisal, then you do so out of fear, and not ethics.

What is most interesting about the Freak Angels is that there are no forceful consequences to their actions (other than from each other), since there is no force in their world which can rival them. I wonder if Warren constructed this situation deliberately, to explore just that: what are the ethics of super-beings upon which no obligations are enforceable?

Anyway, back to the original question of ethics in a post-apocalyptic world:

A lot of people so far have talked about situations involving the absence of ethics: either people would act in ways that harm others out of pure selfishness, or they would choose not to out of fear of the reprisals from re-emerging justice systems (tribal authorities, etc). One train of thought is the cynical idea that most people in the modern world have a lack of ethics in their daily lives, choosing to act purely out of fear of authority. (I'm personally a little more optimistic - there are some scary people out there, but there are plenty of ethical ones, too.)

I guess primarily it would depend on the balance between ethics and survival. Certainly I can see people going to great lengths to ensure their (or their loved ones') survival, if the situation were dire enough. That's probably where the refugees had gotten to - there was a community full of food, and they tried to take it by force (well, that's probably what happened, but this is a nice, twisty tale.)

On the other hand, I can't see too many situations where things would get so dire that it would be necessary to kill people for food. If that was your only source of sustenance, you'd run out of people to kill (or get killed by someone defending themselves) pretty quickly.

WWII is another interesting situation, as the erosion of ethics on the part of soldiers on the front line are well documented. I'm sure the horrors of a post-apocalyptic world would erode people's ethics. However, after the initial cataclysm, things would be likely to settle down, if for no other reason than that population density would decrease peoples' exposure to other people, and hence to further horror. A lot of the soldiers recounting immoral actions committed in WWII express horror and regret - that state of eroded ethics seems fairly temporary.

On that note, I wonder if the Angel's own infliction of disaster on the entire world - a grossly immoral act - is intended to be explained by their treatment at the hands of the people hunting them down. And now that they're no longer hunted, they have a chance to return to a "normal" ethical state.

To summarise: I think things would be bad - people with low ethical values would run rampant until brought into check by re-emerging authorities, while people with higher ethical values would occasionally be faced with situations where they had to compromise their ethics for survival. Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a survivalist wet dream. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123773#Comment_123773 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123773#Comment_123773 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:06:52 -0800 Finagle
And honestly, I think this is one of the great themes of our time. Nietzsche saw this as the fundamental problem of humanity: How do we invent an animal capable of giving the law to itself? Is humanity capable of ruling and directing itself without reference to God or superheroes as the big external Daddy that says 'No'? Or short of ruling themselves, can people just manage not to be total fucks to one another when nobody's watching (or when lots of people are watching and begging for more)?

So how do the humans outside Whitechapel feel about the Freakangels, and should they be behaving ethically towards them? There's another great bit in Nietzsche where he discusses the relationship between an eagle and a lamb. The eagle doesn't hate the lamb when swooping down to eat it, but the lamb hates the eagle. The difference between the two comes when you found moral systems based on your position in the relationship. The eagle swoops along thinking, "Hey, I'm an eagle and at the top of the food chain, I am totally awesome and therefore good!", while the lamb thinks, "Christ, I hate that fucking evil eagle. The eagle is soooo evil that I, the innocent lamb, must be good."

I'm looking forward to more exploration of that. If those who oppose the Freakangels want to do so in the name of humanity, do they have positive human ideals to uphold or are they simply being reactive and embracing a "Freakanglels bad, therefore me good" mentality? Or is it really just all about gutter survival and being tired of eating rats and wanting to live in the white tower? ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123803#Comment_123803 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123803#Comment_123803 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:07:49 -0800 Verissimus do live in a post-apocalypse world, it just hasn't catched up with us yet. Only in the last century we've had two world wars, communism, and several genocides in too many countries to remember. And any kind of fair weather ethics that is abandoned when in a tight spot, is nothing. It's nill and void.

Ethics is only valid when we can expect no reward from it whatsoever. Sure you can choose for survival-whatever-the-cost instead, however if you do that, the question is of course, what that survival - indeed, your very own life - really achieves. Whether you really are worth something, or whether you're just useless bio-matter. You certainly lose the right to complain about anybody else being a heartless cunt. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123866#Comment_123866 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123866#Comment_123866 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:23:02 -0800 razrangel
I think it's a good thing to take care of people who need help. There will always be a way. But the Angels will have to be dead clever in order to keep both the resources rolling to every corner of Whitechapel and to keep people from getting angry at the new, well, foreigners, for lack of a better term. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123909#Comment_123909 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=123909#Comment_123909 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:21:41 -0800 HylianHearts
Thank god that the 'Angels are 23. They at least have some life experiance, even if they were on the run quite a bit. Athics really don't have a say in thier world right now. Right now, it's pretty much "Well, killing the world was a bad idea, let fix it best we can." And they have to do that by depending on eachothers strengths and weaknesses to give them a balance that one single person cannot have.

In short, in the FA world, ethics=good judgement. Or the best they can manage. Which ever happens first. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124948#Comment_124948 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124948#Comment_124948 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:34:17 -0800 Cyman kids are very blunt in their honesty, naivety and cruelty in my experience.I'm sorry.

I just have two rules for RL, obviously not airtight, there will be exceptions, but regarding intentions, and operating under the assumption that happiness is a good thing, a goal even:
1. Do what makes you happy without restricting others' abilities to do the same (hazy line, but not going too far-- just like a quick don't give money to people who cause what I deem "suffering", which I generally connect to economic disparity)
2. Don't denegrate another person's happiness. Unless they're killing babies and lovin' it. Kill that fucker. 'Cause I'm not into baby killing unless they're gonna eat me. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124953#Comment_124953 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124953#Comment_124953 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:48:39 -0800 mister hex
If you act like an asshole, you'll be ostracized or killed. Period.

The nearest thing we have to a post-apocalyptic society, from an ethical standpoint, is prison. If you owe, you pay up. You don't rat or play games or you pay the price. If you're alone, you're prey unless you are a bad-ass enough predator to afford the luxury of being alone. Weakness is to be despised. Weakness means death or worse, living-death, slavery, WORSE. Skills that people need will always be valuable, whatever the currency. And NO WHISTLING. Whistling will get you killed, songbird. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124961#Comment_124961 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124961#Comment_124961 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:16:20 -0800 Doctor_Six
Nailed it, mate. Crowley 2.0

@Mr hex

Please share your whistling pain.... ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124962#Comment_124962 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124962#Comment_124962 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:21:49 -0800 mister hex
Me, I love to whistle. And even I agree it's fucking annoying ... ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124967#Comment_124967 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124967#Comment_124967 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:29:15 -0800 Doctor_Six
Whistling. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124973#Comment_124973 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=124973#Comment_124973 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:17:30 -0800 mister hex
"Just for illustration, for our information, tell us how you plan to run the nation.

These are the laws of my administration ...

No one's allowed to smoke ... or tell a dirty joke ... and whistling is forbidden."

1933, muthafucka. No Whistling. (Or smoking, apparently. Which seems counter-intuitive, seeing as how it was 19thirtyfuckingthree.) ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125016#Comment_125016 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125016#Comment_125016 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:45:52 -0800 dirtymc11 However on the ground things get a little messy. One has to decide whether doing good for others would harm them or those they depend on each day. For instance bringing these refugees into their enclave will stress the resources available to those who were previously promised safety. people who have been contributing to the better of all. now they must be convinced that taking these people in will not stress them.
What if the mother with the baby consumes resources that could have kept a contributing member alive? IS taking them in a good thing if it causes others to suffer? ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125024#Comment_125024 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125024#Comment_125024 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:38:49 -0800 PaulGrahamRaven
But if you hide it well, like your common or garden psychopath, you'll rule your lesser beings.

[Just for clarity, the above sentence is to be read in an ironic tone; not advocating psychopathy here, ok?]

It's fascinating to read research [for which I cannot find the link right now, a situation I blame on the inhalation of burning plant matter] about how well suited psychopaths are to complex systems like modern society. Would they be more so in a less complex and more hand-to-mouth survival-of-the-fittest scenario? ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125149#Comment_125149 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125149#Comment_125149 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:24:35 -0800 dirtymc11 Now one side could say that if the good of society as a whole is considered that it is perfectly okay to take away the right to make choices detrimental to the whole from a few people.
Howevver if the individual is considered to be more important AS AN INDIVIDUAL then to take away their right to make choices (even evil ones) is worse than the choices they would make. To turn a man into a thing without choice would be viewed as worse than killing him.
Now there has never been a society that has put the individual above the society as a whole. Some have given the individual greater importance but none have ever allowed them to freely do as they please.
In a post apocalyptic world the rights of the individual will be sacrificed much more often than they are now. Theft of food might be seen as equal to murder and punishable as such.
Individuals would be required to work together and have to have a reason to sacrifice their own desires to those of the group.
Look for a rise in religious cults. Freakangels as the 2nd coming of Christ. He shall come in judgement and then establish a thousand year reign. Well the 'angels have already judged now they seem to be trying to help pick up the pieces of the wreckage.
Notice how the 'angels interact very little with those outside of their own little group even within their holdings. They may walk the streets and people know their names but they are still removed from those they protect. they remove themselves.
It would be interesting to see if there are any within their enclave who have set up cults based on the 'angels.

also think about this : it is unquestionably the right thing to feel sympathy for these people and anyone who does not should be considered a bad person But what will people think about miki's decision once the dust settles?
What about the man who has been a contributing member of whitechapel who suddenly sees 100 newcomers who havent done anything but drain the already limited resources of the society he is helping to build? If sending them away would make sure that the contributing members dont have to stretch their resources to the breaking point and maybe sending them away would mean that the resources consumed to get that mother and her baby healthy again could be used on his own wife and children. Would he be a bad man because he is not williung to take that risk?
It does not make you a bad person if you buy a house and live there with your family instead of letting a family without a home live there. It just means that you do not have the means necessary to act on your sympathy for that family's plight.
What happens when a member of the enclave who has been there awhile dies directly because they took in these outsiders. Do they blame Miki because she decided to take them in?

When societies fall apart then social groups become smaller. The tribe replaces the nation. When every day is a struggle to survive then you cannot afford to be too welcoming to those who dont contribute in some way to your own survival.

Or for something closer to our Points of Reference think about this :
America suffered a couple of attacks on one day several years ago. It was decided that in order to protect ourselves we needed to take the fight to our enemies. In order to prevent more Americans from dying we have done things that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Were we right or wrong? Only the people who get to write the history books will be able to say. Were we ethical? I believe so. We were acting on what we percieved as a direct threat to our way of life and we did what we thought was necessary to prevent it.
I am not making a value judgement either way. Just pointing out how we (i am using the Democratic we) often make decisions that we know will hurt others but so long as we can put the suffering on those outside of our sphere of interaction we will do so.
Incidentally its ironic to think that in order to make sure that we didnt suffer another attack that took the lives of almost 2000 of our people we have willingly chosen to sacrifice the lives of atleast twice as many americans (in Iraq alone) as died on 9/11.
Not only is ethics relative to your point of view.............it also isnt very good at math :> ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125619#Comment_125619 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=125619#Comment_125619 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:31:35 -0800 geoffmark
If you act like an asshole, you'll be ostracized or killed. Period.

As much as I hope for this to be true, sadly it isn't. Depending on your definition of assholey acts. Plenty of assholes rise to levels of power. One could argue that, on average, you must act like an asshole in order to gain prominent political office. And I guarantee that it's a job requirement at the top levels of the entertainment industry, union leadership, etc.

Back to the FA world ... it seems as if every time two or more FAs get together, once they stop wailing on each other, they get into an ethics discussion. Among the ones we've met, they seem to run the gamut of ethical philosophies, which probably stems from being born & raised in such different circumstances. It could well be that, once you get past the "what if the world were destroyed by a bunch of post-pubescent superhumans by accident" concept, FA is really all about the ethics of being superhuman. Or, it's all about living in a world with terrible booze. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=207138#Comment_207138 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=207138#Comment_207138 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:39:56 -0800 government spy The nearest thing we have to a post-apocalyptic society, from an ethical standpoint, is prison. If you owe, you pay up. You don't rat or play games or you pay the price. If you're alone, you're prey unless you are a bad-ass enough predator to afford the luxury of being alone. Weakness is to be despised. Weakness means death or worse, living-death, slavery, WORSE. Skills that people need will always be valuable, whatever the currency. And NO WHISTLING. Whistling will get you killed, songbird.

Prison isn't like that. It's all about numbers. Whomever has the biggest group, wins. There is no big, bad tough guy, because there's enough of everyone else to take you down.

And everyone is snitching on each other, because everyone is paranoid that someone is snitching on them (which they are) so then they try to pre-emptively snitch on their friend/enemy first.

There is no honor among thieves. There is no code at all. It's just watch your own ass, and hang around with a bunch of other assholes who say they'll watch yours, against another group of assholes. But it's a big Mexican Standoff, because nobody is really ballsy enough to do anything.

Anyways, just saying. Prison on TV makes a good analogy. In fiction. Reality, sadly enough, isn't cool or fun, it's just depressing. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=207907#Comment_207907 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=207907#Comment_207907 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:05:56 -0800 Redwynd ...Unless they're killing babies...

This brings to mind my favorite ethical dilemma: the North American Baby. It sort of the "tree falling in the forest" of my personal ethics: for each of the first five years in life, a North American child consumes, or is the cause for consumption of, enough resources (electricity, food, housing, medical care,etc) to feed, cloth, and house six adults from the Third World*, and consumption by the NA child grows from there. These amounts are not offset by productive contributions** to society, so where the child contributes nothing and is capable of contributing nothing, by comparison those living in less prosperous areas are at least capable of contributing something to the greater tribe. It is also true, however, that with the resources dedicated to that child in the maturing years, and greater opportunities in adult life, more contribution will come from the NA child once they are an adult than the six Third World adults in their entire lives. So, in a world of finite resources (true) and limited annual resource production (also true), the current question arises: who lives and who dies?***

This is, of course, an exercise in reductio ad absurdium, but I think the point is valid, and as an ethical question is one of the more relevant to life in Western society than anything Kant put to paper. We are very much beginning to live in a world where resources produced anywhere in the world can be consumed anywhere in the world (though cost is added via distance), and yet production and consumption are very much unbalanced. As proof, the U.S., in 2008, exported only $1.27tn, as compared to a whopping $2.11tn in imports, only 25% of which comes from its own continent. Economics has virtually created a united world, that encompasses smaller principalities within it, like small children all fighting for Mommy's attention and love. Our reaction, as a global society, to this is what while define our actions as "ethical" or "unethical" in the eyes of future generations (if there are any).

* = I don't have an actual source for this, I came up with it while writing a school paper a few years back - but I did draw most of my supporting figures from the CIA World Factbook, which I'm sure are still there.
** = Define "contributions however you like. Goods produced, services rendered, etc., etc., they all contribute to the general well-being of our species. In economic theory, at least.
*** = I've got my answer to this, but then I just don't like children. I suspect that people with less developed knee-jerk reactions might have a little bit of a harder time.
Edit to add: grammer, spelling, that sort of thing. ]]> Ethics in a Drowned World http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=221096#Comment_221096 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4896&Focus=221096#Comment_221096 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:07:30 -0800 BrokenReal
First, once healed, the majority of the newcomers will be able to work to immediately improve the infrastructure. In a way, the FA's avoided an ethical decision which they were divided over, in favor of an economical one. Economical decisions tend to be easier to make because they are based on generally more accepted or at least understood values. There is far less gray area.

Second, hearkening back to Redwynd's talk of babies and applying it to Whitechapel. If the 300 people of Whitechapel have limited resources such that 100 mostly able-bodied people would put too much stress on the system, do they have a right to bring more children into the world? If yes, then how many babies and who gets to have them? Like the FA's I would probably simplify it to an economical matter. If the town is strong enough, say able to support 125% of the current population for a month with only current supplies, then sure kids are fine.

Both decisions are ethically charged, to be sure. If they weren't, it would be easier to leave 100 people to die than be forced to work harder in town to make things better.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that by deferring to non-ethical criteria to make decisions, no hard and fast boundaries need to be made. The root of all this, I think, lies in values. It's easy to see the economic value in 100 more workers to farm or desalinize water, but harder to place a value on 15 babies. It gets trickier to compare the two. We could do as Redwynd did and only think of the predictable economic contributions. But what about unpredictable things like group morale, or if the babies grow up to be doctors or innovators or if the outsiders bring in disease. It's really the same issues we face every day in modern society. The difference is scale. The effects of every choice are much more obvious in a town of 300-400.

I think the value choices are what I don't envy about the FA's and also what is so compelling about the series. It's twelve 23 year olds making value judgments with not much life experience. And they have to live with the consequences every day. ]]>