A spam thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen R. Donaldson

A real man—real in all the ways that we recognize as real– finds himself suddenly abstracted from the world and deposited in a physical situation which could not possibly exist…. There he is informed… that he must fight to the death in single combat against a champion from another world. If he is defeated, he will die, and his world– the real world– will be destroyed because it lacks the inner strength to survive.
The man refuses to believe that what he is told is true. He asserts that he is either dreaming or hallucinating, and declines to be put in the false position of fighting to death where no 'real' danger eists…
Question: is the man's behaviour courageous or cowardly? This is the fundamental question of ethics.

---

I'd consider the man's behaviour not only cowardly, but stupid. He's deposited in a physical situation--i.e. his senses of touch, taste, sound, and sight all function; it's more than just a dream, it's a physical environment which defies the things the man knows to be true. Since he won't fight, he will be 'killed' by the champion from another world, and if the data he's received were to be factual, he would cease to exist and so would his entire world; perhaps, if the man is right, no real danger exists--but if he's wrong, he dies, and so does everyone and everything he knows.

If the man is right it doesn't matter if he wins or loses, he and his world go on and the 'delusion' ends.
If the man is wrong, and he wins, he and his world goes on and the delusion ends. If he's wrong and he loses, it's armageddon.

The only way the man can lose is if he's wrong and loses. If he's right and wins, he loses nothing for making the attempt.

Bear in mind, that there was a time in this land that everyone 'knew' that the Earth was flat. If you'd taken a man from that time and sent him to another planet, and given him the same challenge, and he reacted the same way--our world would never have come into existence. The man would have refused to fight, dooming all of us born later into nonexistence because of an underlying flawed 'knowledge' of How Things Are.

This sounds exactly like an old episode of Star Trek and so the answer must be courageous because Kirk would never be cowardly. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys

The man would have refused to fight, dooming all of us born later into nonexistence because of an underlying flawed 'knowledge' of How Things Are.

---

i don't know, i might take issue with that though

it's kind of a different situation that way, because the knowledge that the earth is flat is an observation made in his normal environment. wrong though it may be, it's still taken from outside the realm of this 'challenge' whereas the observation that the challenge could all be some sort of ruse is something you have to decide when in the situation.

as for the original writing...it sounds a bit like pascal's wager the way you've dissected it, by the way,

i think that his actions are both, and neither, but that's the whole point.

I consider it couageous and stupid. The two can easily go hand in hand :p The thing is, if it is a delusion, then there's no harm in trying. You just have to wait until the docs in meatspace figure something out for you or whatever. On the other hand, if it's real and you reject it, you're in trouble.

I sincerely doubt any civilization capable of grabbing people like that would have such a retarded way to judge the "inner strength" of a world though.

Is your story any different than the 'you better believe in God because if you're wrong you will go to hell' argument to be a Christian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

Is your story any different than the 'you better believe in God because if you're wrong you will go to hell' argument to be a Christian?

---

you mean like pascal's wager??!

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

Yep.

---

sweet :D

let's discuss pastry. I like pie.

Belief in pie is good because disbelief in pie brings less pie. Therefore it is better to believe in pie than to not believe in pie.

The man's actions are cowardly. If put in that situation it is most likely if the situation is real that you will die in any eventuality other than to win. Since the same is true of a delusion that if you win the duel is over and there is no possibility of harm comming to you then so what you won a dream fight good on you, go write a novel based on it. However to reject the entire situation out of hand and to refuse to fight is stupid, wrong or right it's going to have the same outcome if you win. There is only one problem, how if the duel is won by the man can he ever tell if it was real or not?

I'll play devil's advocate. The man, at no point, intends to commit a wrong. The intent behind one's actions is just as important as the outcome when arguing ethically. The man does not intend to destroy the world by his actions, nor does he have any reason to actually believe his actions will destroy the world. Just because he has sensory input doesn't necessarily hold water. Narcotic drug use and other altered states of consciousness can bring about similar feelings. So can dreams. If he doesn't believe what these beings are telling him and has no reason to believe it, his intent cannot be described as unethical. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean he is unethical.

My personal ethics align with Bleys's argument. There's no reason for the man to not fight. However intent is still important in an ethical argument, as well as the outcomes. If the man truly does not believe what is happening to him, then can he actually act unethically?

If you've been kidnapped and forced to fight by a group of people (or aliens, or whatever) who admit they have no problem destroying your planet for frivolous reasons, can you trust that they will honor their part of the bargain and not destroy your planet if you do win the fight? They are already proven kidnappers and potentially mass-murderers; why not also liars? The people doing something wrong are the ones who destroy someone's planet for no obvious reason.

In a very real sense it's wrong to allow yourself to be coerced by force into being party to something like this. What has this other "champion" you'll be fighting done to deserve death? Is it right to kill a stranger in order to stop a bunch of murderers from murdering a bunch of other people? If this is acceptable, where would you draw the line? Imagine you change the scenario so the man doesn't have to fight a champion, but rather has to murder a bunch of unarmed children.

The only reason to fight in this situation is in self-defense. And in that case, you should try to fight on your own terms, not on the terms dictated by your kidnappers. Fight to try to alter the situation entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

This sounds exactly like an old episode of Star Trek and so the answer must be courageous because Kirk would never be cowardly. :)

---

Exactly.

Personally, if I was in his postition, I would would refuse, too. I think he refuses for the wrong reasons, though. In my opinion, it's utter cowardice to say "I simply will not fight because I don't believe this is real." Who cares if it's real or not? It shows unbelievable lack of compassion for everyone that "depends" on his response.

Given the same scenario, like I said above, I would refuse but for a different reason. This is my response to that situation:

"I refuse to do so. Who am I to carry the existence of my world? Everything else that lives alongside me is just as important as I am and I am not fit to be the judge of our fates."

I'm going to stop thinking about this but, on the other hand, I guess it's really not a question of what you would answer. It's a question of why you would answer that way. Ethics support why one does things.

SPAM

sounds like the battle with Necron in FFIX, or quite a few video game scenarios, for that matter.

Sounds more like a problem a leper might have to deal with.

I believe that there is cowardice in accepting a surreal situation when it is obviously so out of there that it could not exist. Fighting the other world's champion is irrelevant; one should be fighting the world, because it is untrue. Embracing the unreal is avoiding the truth. How much more cowardly could one be?

I would say that the man acted courageously.

Most Greeks knew that the earth was round. It was the actual size that illuded them. The flat earth theory didn't really become mainstream until the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, and even then the educated knew this was false. Prior to the Greeks we don't really see inquiries being made into the actual structure of the Earth. Reality was merely the boundaries of one's hunting grounds.

As far as your situational dilemma goes, I would have to know more on how this man was transported into this situation. It would have to follow some logic based on the laws of physics, otherwise I would have to assume it was a dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

Is your story any different than the 'you better believe in God because if you're wrong you will go to hell' argument to be a Christian?

---

Yes. In Covenant's case, it's not just his ass on the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Her Majesty's Agent Umaro

Sounds more like a problem a leper might have to deal with.

---

Hence the credit to SRD in the opening post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

Imagine you change the scenario so the man doesn't have to fight a champion, but rather has to murder a bunch of unarmed children.

Exactly.

---

Or what if instead of a champion, it's a bag of marshmellows, and instead of a fight to the death, you are challenged to bake a batch of delicious, delicious s'mores? If you change the question, of course the answer, too, changes.

Neither man. Even though he was courageous enough to take the coward's way out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys

Or what if instead of a champion, it's a bag of marshmellows, and instead of a fight to the death, you are challenged to bake a batch of delicious, delicious s'mores? If you change the question, of course the answer, too, changes.

---

My goal was to change the question in a way that made obvious something about the original question. The fact remains that the "champion" did nothing to deserve death that I'm aware of. Fighting people to the death isn't something you can lightly dismiss.