RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#2
Oh my goodness. So I put your novel on my to-read list a while ago. Haven't gotten around to it yet, as I've been too busy writing my own novels and trying to get a job. But now that I've read this thread...SO READING IT SOON!!! Probably start tomorrow, haha. :P

Nah, it's not evil...well maybe...I'd do it!...

Well, I guess that depends. Are the orcs the kind that get along with others? (If that exists, haha.)
If they're nice orcs, then maybe it's a tad evil?

If they're the kind that are pricks to everyone. Murder everyone and savage, then yeah definitely kill em all. Er, ok this the tiredness talking, haha.
If they're mean pricks, then nah, it's not evil.

My reply probably didn't help much. I'm sorry.

:z_z_Z:

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#6
"Evil" is extremely subjective. Now, if you're talking about morally wrong, then it's still subjective, but a bit more open for interpretation.

As mentioned above, it all depends on your perspectives and values. I personally hold stories separate from real life implications so that I may enjoy them for the flawed/skewed realities that they are. Try looking at it from different perspectives.

Generic shounen protag. A - NO! You cannot kill, for killing is inherently evil!
~devils advocate~ But what if the act of killing is to prevent future or further suffering of an individual or group of individuals?
Protag. A - It's still evil! I will stop you from killing somehow by not killing you in an extremely convenient plot devoid way!
~devils advocate~ ...Sure buddy. You can try. *proceeds to stab fatally wounded soldiers through the neck on a battlefield to relieve their pain*
Protag. A - NOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Morally ambiguous - Hmm... depends on what you define as murder. Is it the act of killing itself? Is it death with the intent of ill? What is evil in the first place? Is there a good reason for said killings? Or are you merely killing for the sake of kill. In the last instance, I'd say it's clearly evil.The other ones aren't quite as clear cut.


(Evil) Demonlord - Babies? Fetuses? Pshaa. I eat those for breakfast! Nothing wrong with a little fruit of life early in the morning. There's millions more of them in the world anyways. Who's gonna miss one or two? Life is cheap, Death, however, has a price.



So... as you can see, there's many different views and values.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#7
It depends on the attitude of the races of your world towards orcs. Please understand that 'you' here refers to the person doing the killing, not the author

1) Orcs are like humans, only barbaric and bloodthirsty
- It's murder to kill orc babies and you're trash for doing it
2) Orcs are like humans, but their existence is a menace to everyone on the continent
- It's murder, but you'll be touted as a hero. If there exists a church that value all life as equal though (like PETA), they'll still acknowledge you as a hero, but they'll also call you murderer and a sinful man
3) Orcs are like humans, but they're rejected everywhere
- It's still murder, but people really don't care. They'd prefer if you do the killing away from their eyes, though.
4) Orcs are like our version of demons and devils
- It's not murder, you'll be seen as a hero. However, you will be avoided just as if you're a demon yourself because you allow yourself to stoop to their level, not to mention you're dirty from killing so many orcs (refer to Angel Sanctuary)
5) Orcs have their own culture and lifestyle
- You're trash, no doubt about it
6) Orcs are similar to magic beasts and have magic cores
- It's not murder, you're just acquiring magical/alchemical materials
7) Orcs are just like normal animals, only able to use tools
- It's not murder, they're prey. Similar in way to that story about the MC being transferred to a game world so buggy he excelled at abusing the bugs.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#10
Just giving my two cents:

I think it has nothing to do with the victim, but basically the state of mind of the attacker itself. 

If a hunter kills a pig because he wants to feed his family then that is not a murder, but if the hunter kills the boar then put its head on a pike for all the other pigs to see, then that is actually a murder, regardless whether the victim is sentient or not. 

If the attacker's objective is simply to inflict pain and suffering on someone else, regardless whether he enjoy it or not, then,  I consider that a murder. The justification for doing so only change the "Degree" of the murder.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#11
*SIGHED*  Here we go again...

2/29/2016 7:10:38 PMBlaiseCorvin Wrote: [ -> ]Using this logic, if I'm hungry and I kill my neighbor to eat him, I am morally in the right.


Why would you ever want to eat your damn neighbor?! (unless you are a zombie) If you are hungry, then hunt for lesser creatures, look for fruits, plant some wheat, hell, eat your own turd for all I care. Even if you are on an isolated island with no food, then eat your arm first. 

Now if your neighbor kills YOU for attempting to eat him, then that is not a murder because he is defending himself from a cannibal. 

What I am trying to explain here, which is my own opinion, by the way, is that if a person kills for a REAL reason, i.e. to protect his family, to provide for his family, then he is not a murderer. He may still be liable to face the law of the land if there are different cultures involve, but he is not a murderer because a murderer by definition is someone who kills for his own pleasure with no REAL justification at all. 

2/29/2016 7:10:38 PMBlaiseCorvin Wrote: [ -> ]By this logic, if a farmer exterminates bugs that are eating his crops and he enjoys  it because they've been causing him pain, that's murder.  Now you could argue that killing the bugs is helping the farmer feed his family, but what if he also hate the bugs and wants to kill them all off?


You actually believe that if a swarm of locust descended on a vast field of crops, the farmer will have the time to enjoy tearing apart the bugs? No, he will be desperately stomping on them in useless attempt to save a portion of his field, because he knows that come winter, he and his family are dead. 

Therefore, that is not murder because there is no way he will be “enjoying” the kill. 

And before we go any further, my opinion is based on Mr. Naosu’s musing. About a fictional ORC babies, and not about life in general. I am not stupid enough to go to that quagmire about the death penalty and meaning of life. 

If a soldier is walking down a dusty road and notice an orc baby crying and just continue walking, then even if he knew that the baby will eventually die from the elements, then that is not murder. He might be a dick, but that is still not a murder. Now if another soldier came walking by and started to stab the baby just because he hates green men and he likes how the baby cry then that one is considered a murderer… and a dick.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#12
This is tough issue considering people have so many varying ideas of what is good and evil. Now after reading your story I would think most races that have dealt with the orcs would say it isn't evil. These orcs are a savage people: killing, raping, cannibals, and other things that I can't think of right now. For the characters in the story I don't really think they would think it is evil considering what the orcs have done to them throughout the story, bare in mind this is without really knowing their ideals in their life before they were summoned. To the characters I would say it matters how much their hate for the orcs has grown since they've started dealing with them. Though this is a hard subject to judge I would say most races in your world wouldn't believe it is evil considering the way these fetuses, babies, and children are brought about which is the rape of women from many races, peoples loved ones that were taken away from them. Well this is what I think the people in your world would think of this issue.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#13
Hey There. *throws five cents at you*

I wrote a guide on villians, but it would work on this too.

Here is what I said. (summed up) version)

It all depends on the degree of evilness and how you want to portray your character. It like the saying "punishment fits the crime." SO if your hero tortures a guy before killing him, but all he did was pickpocket- its a bit much. Decisions like these are what shows your reader what he is capable of, where he draws the line he wont cross.

What drives the action behind him killing the orc babies. Is it out of duty, revenge? Maybe he has something against them personally. (they ate his mom or something) The most important part is. How does the action affect him emotionally. The same goes for if he leaves them alive.


How to create an awesome villain: http://royalroadl.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=49749


As for all the philosophical stuff. If you see someone or you kill something and you feel bad. It was bad for you. It affected you badly. If you feel killing baby orcs is bad then its bad. As for moral values and all that, people will always fight about it. You are the writer its your story. You know what you want your MC to be so make it happen dude. Goodluck.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#14
2/29/2016 9:24:27 PMBlaiseCorvin Wrote: [ -> ]Apologies if this is a little heavy handed or philosophically heavy.  I don't mean to cause any offense.

Sometimes I forget that this community is comprised of a whole spectrum of ages, languages, cultures, and education levels.

I have a tendency to slip into "scholarly gasbag" mode so please just ignore my ramblings if you'd like. :)


Sure man, then we agree to disagree :)

I'm just wondering though why your tendency to become a "gasbag" as you say it, always comes when you want to disagree with other people's belief. but if people question your belief you back off? I'm talking about your satire that suddenly disappear when other people started questioning your intention with it. Remember? what was it called again? oh yeah, RE: AWESOME. I remember that because I'm one of your followers. The last info you gave your followers is that you are pulling the story out because people misunderstood you.

Imagine my surprise when some new author by the name of Oppai Sensei, just came out with YOUR satire yesterday! The guy's work had the same title, and the same picture, and almost the same info inside as your original work! of course, there are differences as well, like the synopsis,  but paragraph after paragraph, the similarities are uncanny!

You should report that to the mods or, at least, give him a piece of your mind in the review section! I mean surely that is intellectual property theft or whatever, something I'm sure you have a lot to say about, despite the cultures and differences in educational level of your fellow authors.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#15
Here is how I see it.

Morality is nothing absolute.

The very concept of what is 'good' and 'bad' has changed over the ages, peoples, races, time, mental age. As for what we call 'law', it is too a bunch of codes of conduct set up by a group of people to reflect the 'morals' of that time and place. People might have a set of morals, but it is not necessarily the same set someone else carries.

Most of the 'laws' are actually based on human interactions. Very few laws have anything to do with human-animal/environment interactions. So, the laws of Earth are very faulty in context to a fantasy world where there are different races. Add to the fact that almost all laws are based on morals, which are not absolute. Slavery was accepted even a few centuries back, now it is not. Same goes for murder. In a world of strife, where the tension between species is at an extreme, I doubt someone killing even a baby of the enemy would be considered a murderer. Why am I talking like this? because it is that world, not ours.

As for our world, during wars, there are very few morals being upheld. A country might talk about protecting freedom and lives but it will carpet bomb another country, killing millions of its innocent citizens. Is it not murder? Yet those people are hailed as heroes. Who is the freedom for? Their own people, they care not about others. Where is the morality in that?

We have defeated countries being tried for War Crimes, with adages like "Crimes against Humanity", but not the same against the victor when they both are guilty of doing the same things. It makes me think that the 'justice' etcetera are 'rights' of the victor, not based on morals. It always has been. Morality is decided by the victor after the dust settles down, I am afraid.

So in closing, it is useless to think of morals of another world, or how it should be. It is especially foolhardy to think of morals in times of war.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#17
3/2/2016 4:54:10 AMClearMadness Wrote: [ -> ]All I can say is that you should avoid moral relativism like that espoused by Durrendal, and perhaps educate yourself about the different ethical systems that exist in real life. Some examples include Utilitarianism and Deontology.


I believed I mentioned that "So, the laws of Earth are very faulty in context to a fantasy world where there are different races" so I was not necessarily saying this as truth but saying this is probably the context with which a fantasy world should be viewed.

As for moral relativism, sure, I believe morals are fragile. I have tried to expose via examples about how people frequently use morals to impose their own set of ideas and interests on others. Also, take note, I would have mentioned 'Moral Relativism' if that was what I was preaching. I am not saying you should watch as someone kills a person because it is what is needed in a war. I am saying that you should follow your ideals and if it leads to saving the person, and if you end up killing the attacker, give yourself up since you committed the same crime. You would have to choose between letting a person die or maybe turning a murderer yourself to protect what you believe in.  

I was not preaching moral relativism, merely saying how people have killed babies and stuff even if it is of the  same race. Then they were hailed as war heroes. So, that was an answer to OP that killing orc babies would probably be an accepted and lauded course of action in that world. 

As for your theories, please do not try to make it sound like they are the only ones used in real world. People laud and criticize each of these viewpoints and that's it. It is up to each person to view the world as they wish.

Also, if you practice Utilitarianism, it sounds like governments shouldn't try to rescue hostages and instead blow up a whole plane taken in by terrorists. Or, by the theory, if a war causes more deaths than the reason for the war, the war should not be fought.  Look at the examples in my previous post, do the countries seem to be following that?  Also, isn't it also the philosophy how people rationalize 'they need to be sacrificed for grater good' and put wire taps in your house or control information & media? 

Noe, Deontological, it is pretty much what I said. Judge an action based on how closely it adheres to rules. In this case, if the rule is to kill orcs, killing a orc baby won't be a bad thing. If it is a decree by the country or king to kill innocents, adherence to those rules will bring praises, isn't it? Another self-serving theory to rationalize killing by saying, 'I was ordered to by my country', I see. 

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#18
3/2/2016 5:41:15 PMDurrendal Wrote: [ -> ]I believed I mentioned that "So, the laws of Earth are very faulty in context to a fantasy world where there are different races" so I was not necessarily saying this as truth but saying this is probably the context with which a fantasy world should be viewed.

As for moral relativism, sure, I believe morals are fragile. I have tried to expose via examples about how people frequently use morals to impose their own set of ideas and interests on others. Also, take note, I would have mentioned 'Moral Relativism' if that was what I was preaching. I am not saying you should watch as someone kills a person because it is what is needed in a war. I am saying that you should follow your ideals and if it leads to saving the person, and if you end up killing the attacker, give yourself up since you committed the same crime. You would have to choose between letting a person die or maybe turning a murderer yourself to protect what you believe in.  

I was not preaching moral relativism, merely saying how people have killed babies and stuff even if it is of the  same race. Then they were hailed as war heroes. So, that was an answer to OP that killing orc babies would probably be an accepted and lauded course of action in that world. 

As for your theories, please do not try to make it sound like they are the only ones used in real world. People laud and criticize each of these viewpoints and that's it. It is up to each person to view the world as they wish.

Also, if you practice Utilitarianism, it sounds like governments shouldn't try to rescue hostages and instead blow up a whole plane taken in by terrorists. Or, by the theory, if a war causes more deaths than the reason for the war, the war should not be fought.  Look at the examples in my previous post, do the countries seem to be following that?  Also, isn't it also the philosophy how people rationalize 'they need to be sacrificed for grater good' and put wire taps in your house or control information & media? 

Noe, Deontological, it is pretty much what I said. Judge an action based on how closely it adheres to rules. In this case, if the rule is to kill orcs, killing a orc baby won't be a bad thing. If it is a decree by the country or king to kill innocents, adherence to those rules will bring praises, isn't it? Another self-serving theory to rationalize killing by saying, 'I was ordered to by my country', I see.


Clear definitely could have worded what he was trying to say better imo, but what he was getting at( I think anywho.) is that moral relativism is a way to avoid actually having to consider the morality of an issue.

It seems like a way to just cop out on an entire portion of the story. Any action can be justified, but if you live by certain morals or standards, then you have to deal with the cognitive dissonance associated with not upholding those values or the satisfaction of doing so. These elements are primal and fascinating for any reader. 

The view points clear stated were more for instigating thought rather than trying to say you where wrong. Your view points just make for a lack of discussion about the issue like nothing is right or wrong. EG: most laws are meant for upholding law and order in a society. There are exceptions, but this is almost always true. These types of moral questions and implications can really enrich characters or a culture and world imo. 

I personally really like the idea of deontology on a personal level that uses logic as its framework. So a character values only human life, he wouldn't care about the orc babies either way. If the character values all life, he would. You just have to decide whats important to your character early on so that you can let the reader know about it then present him with a dilemma that he works through with whatever line of reasoning you set up earlier.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#19
3/3/2016 8:32:57 PMMonsoon117 Wrote: [ -> ]
3/2/2016 5:41:15 PMDurrendal Wrote: [ -> ]I believed I mentioned that "So, the laws of Earth are very faulty in context to a fantasy world where there are different races" so I was not necessarily saying this as truth but saying this is probably the context with which a fantasy world should be viewed.

As for moral relativism, sure, I believe morals are fragile. I have tried to expose via examples about how people frequently use morals to impose their own set of ideas and interests on others. Also, take note, I would have mentioned 'Moral Relativism' if that was what I was preaching. I am not saying you should watch as someone kills a person because it is what is needed in a war. I am saying that you should follow your ideals and if it leads to saving the person, and if you end up killing the attacker, give yourself up since you committed the same crime. You would have to choose between letting a person die or maybe turning a murderer yourself to protect what you believe in.  

I was not preaching moral relativism, merely saying how people have killed babies and stuff even if it is of the  same race. Then they were hailed as war heroes. So, that was an answer to OP that killing orc babies would probably be an accepted and lauded course of action in that world. 

As for your theories, please do not try to make it sound like they are the only ones used in real world. People laud and criticize each of these viewpoints and that's it. It is up to each person to view the world as they wish.

Also, if you practice Utilitarianism, it sounds like governments shouldn't try to rescue hostages and instead blow up a whole plane taken in by terrorists. Or, by the theory, if a war causes more deaths than the reason for the war, the war should not be fought.  Look at the examples in my previous post, do the countries seem to be following that?  Also, isn't it also the philosophy how people rationalize 'they need to be sacrificed for grater good' and put wire taps in your house or control information & media? 

Noe, Deontological, it is pretty much what I said. Judge an action based on how closely it adheres to rules. In this case, if the rule is to kill orcs, killing a orc baby won't be a bad thing. If it is a decree by the country or king to kill innocents, adherence to those rules will bring praises, isn't it? Another self-serving theory to rationalize killing by saying, 'I was ordered to by my country', I see.


Clear definitely could have worded what he was trying to say better imo, but what he was getting at( I think anywho.) is that moral relativism is a way to avoid actually having to consider the morality of an issue.

It seems like a way to just cop out on an entire portion of the story. Any action can be justified, but if you live by certain morals or standards, then you have to deal with the cognitive dissonance associated with not upholding those values or the satisfaction of doing so. These elements are primal and fascinating for any reader. 

The view points clear stated were more for instigating thought rather than trying to say you where wrong. Your view points just make for a lack of discussion about the issue like nothing is right or wrong. EG: most laws are meant for upholding law and order in a society. There are exceptions, but this is almost always true. These types of moral questions and implications can really enrich characters or a culture and world imo. 

I personally really like the idea of deontology on a personal level that uses logic as its framework. So a character values only human life, he wouldn't care about the orc babies either way. If the character values all life, he would. You just have to decide whats important to your character early on so that you can let the reader know about it then present him with a dilemma that he works through with whatever line of reasoning you set up earlier.


One day, Monson, I will kill you for making me write long ass posts, one day I will.

I think something got lost in the conversation there. For one thing, I did not talk about moral relativism. I was tailoring the answer to OP's question. From what I gathered, he was asking us about whether it is moral to kill Orc babies. Now, what I was getting at is that we are humans that live in the 21st century, on earth.  But OP's world is different, in a different time and with very different social and racial circumstances. So, it is somewhat useless to ask us. The 'morals' would be set in that world and the specific culture and we simply are not going to understand it very well. So for that characters OP wants to write about, they need to be based on the morals and practices of that world, not ours. Asking us will not really solve the issue.

Here what comes to play what might have come across as moral relativism. I was merely pointing out that we humans too do not always stick to our morals. Since it changes, and often is flouted for some better gains.  Even in that world if OP constructs the morals, the occasional flouting of those or breaking it would be more interesting or realistic. I mean some people have set some morals for themselves but as they see things, get old, it changes. In that way, the morals are not absolute. The same thing comes into play when a peaceful MC turns bloodthirsty after horrible incidents happen to him. 

Now here is what I wanted to say as an example. Lets say a MC's world has a Tribe that does live sacrifice of members of another tribe. Now, a member of the first tribe wouldn't have a problem with this as he has grown up with those set of morals. But the other tribe will, and also let's say someone from a civilized society sees it, he will have a problem too. What happens if due to some extraordinary circumstances the first tribe has to sacrifice a member of their own tribe? That would cause conflict inside the man of the first tribe, nothing from members of the second tribe and the civilized guy will still have problems.

So, in closing, I was not asking him to avoid thinking of morals, but construct the laws and culture of his world and societies to get the morals of that world. 

I think we all were saying the very same things, but in very different ways.

RE: Do you guys think it’s murder to kill orc fetuses and orc babies?

#20
One can debate with others. with me, and with oneself until blue in the face, but in the end, moral relativism is the correct answer. You can argue with that, but I'll cite moral relativism and insist that I'm 'right' and you are 'wrong', according to me. It won't go anywhere constructive.

I'm much more interested in the inbetween of morals. The gritty part. The bits of ethics that go bump in the night.

If an individual takes an action, on some level, they 'believe' in that action. That the action is 'right'. Part of the problem is the limitations of our languages, with poor resolution on words relating to ethics, but it's a moment in time that their conscious mind told their body to do something. They decided to do it.

My question is, if a character kills orc babies in a really righteous way, but still feels guilty afterwards, is that character good or evil? Can this character continue to do possibly evil acts in the name of good, tortured by it, and still be good? Are they good if 10 out of 10 times they would still kill those orc babies out of necessity, but feel terrible about it afterwards?

A character that is capable of doing that sounds the most evil to me. The kind that would stab you in the back for 'necessity' then say "I'm so sorry" while crying over your dead body.

Right?