#there isn't the same ethical ambiguity there

[creacherviolence]

I love horror stories centered around hubris.

Sure, hopping in a death trap and taking a slow joyride to the soggy depths of hell is arguably the fucking stupidest series of life choices possible. And sure, the majority of these men spent decades hoarding wealth and said wealth made them feel invincible. They disturbed an antique mass gravesite for their own personal enjoyment. And yet, there's this sort of cognitive dissonance surrounding the conversation.

In a work of fiction, the plot would be perfectly set up for them to "have it coming." It's got all the tropes. A dangerous, spooky setting at the bottom of the ocean. Rich men with little regard for human life. Hubris, in their own arrogant assumption that enormous wealth gave them godlike invulnerability. Hubris again, underestimating the raw power of the ocean. Disrespecting the dead, whose ghosts have haunted the world for over a century in the form of a story we never stopped telling. Ghosts who were innocent victims of the same hubris: The Unsinkable's dire shortage of lifeboats and other emergency supplies. It's like it was written to be a story about bad men who get their comeuppance. It's irony layered in irony like a goddamn metaphor ratatouille.

But can anyone have that coming?

Who gets to decide what is justice and what is tragedy?

There is no author figure outside the extremely predictable consequences of their own actions. There's nobody on the other side of the plot typing out a heavy-handed morality tale. There's no intent to force the reader to decide between empathy and condemnation because this is the news and not a short story in literature class. The whole thing is built like a sick twin of some lost Ray Bradbury tale but it isn't.

And not only is it real, it's happening right now. I don't know how long an actual event needs to cook before it becomes modern mythos, but it sure as shit is longer than yesterday. Though some facts are lost to the water, the broad strokes of the sinking of the Titanic are largely known. The events in the sub are a complete mystery because Schrödinger's boxheads are still nowhere to be found.

Now, maybe analyzing the last moments of the missing-presumed-dead like a piece of literature is in poor taste. But I think the most chilling, the most compelling part of this whole shitshow, is how quickly someone can change from a person into a story. Both immortalized and already dead before they even knew they were doomed.

[aleksanderscult]

People accuse the Darkling of...

⚠️TW!: Genocide, sexual assault and abuse⚠️

People accuse the Darkling of lacking empathy.

Well that's what immortality does to you, my friend. The human brain is not designed for this kind of thing. It's miraculous that he wasn't insane by the start of "Shadow and Bone".

He also willingly stopped feeling emotions because they distracted him from his goal.

Furthermore, he was raised by a mother that kept telling him to never believe in love and always tried to isolate him from people he could bond with.

And I don't think you call someone "unfeeling" when he seems concerned about what will happen to Ravka and the Grisha or when you remember his reaction to his mother's fall or when he saw the woman he loved lose her entire soul, her very being right in front of him. The man could feel. But his emotions were buried deep within.

People accuse the Darkling of being a murderer.

Yes, he was, I agree.

But so was Alina, so was Mal, so was Nikolai. Everybody killed people.

"But Nikolai didn't kill out of evilness"

Neither did the Darkling. He didn't do it because he enjoyed it, he wasn't a sadist. He killed because he was fighting a war. At times of peace (if there was any in Ravka) he didn't go around shooting people out of boredom.

People accuse the Darkling of lying to Alina.

He lied to Alina because she was a new and, apparently, naïve person that he couldn't just trust from day one. He was the leader of an army that was already in danger of being hunted down if the King changed his mind. Why should he trust her? Why should he tell her his secrets? Is she his lieutenant? Is she part of the royal council? No, I don't think so.

"He lied to her about who he is!"

Isn't that the same lie he was telling to literally everyone for 400 years? You say it like he did it because he had something personal against her. It really shows how clueless all of you are for the matters of politics and ruling. Read a book ffs.

People accuse the Darkling of committing genocide.

He didn't. He was actually a victim of one.

I can't believe this accusation even exists

People accuse the Darkling of being a sexually creep towards Alina.

Aside from the fact that neither I nor the author herself consider him as one, are we talking about those moments where they already were enemies? Do you know what an "enemies-to-lovers" trope is? Do you know that in this kind of trope attraction and aversion are the primary ingredients?

Or the fact that, in the Grishaverse, the very rules of consent are different. How can you or anyone put modern laws into a fantastical universe where people with magical powers exist and things are run differently? Each universe has its own setting, structure and rules. Why are you putting your contemporary ideals and ethics there? What are they even doing there in the first place?

People accuse the Darkling of being manipulative towards Alina.

If you accuse him as such, could you please DM me the passages from the book where he did that? Because even I can't find them.

And I'm talking about before his big reveal as the "villain". Because after that, those moments are again taken as the actions of an enemies-to-lovers trope.

But where he was manipulative before that?

Good luck trying to figure out the impossibly ambiguous scenes where Leigh tried to paint him as one in S&B and failed.

People accuse the Darkling of being power-hungry

I agree, he sought power. But as far as we know he never wanted power exclusively for himself. In RoW it was revealed that even the Fold was the result of him trying to stop the wars:

Wars ended and began again—and again and again. Grisha were not accepted; they were resented in Ravka and hunted abroad. Men fought them with swords, then guns, then worse. There was no end to it, and so he had sought an end. Power that could not be questioned. Might that could not be reckoned with. The result had been the Fold.

The amplifiers? To control the Fold and stop the wars.

The nichevo'ya? Used them to lower the losses of his army.

The throne? Unlike his predecessor, he seemed to be involved in paperwork, listening to his advisors, feeding his army and trying to deal with all the deserters from that army.

"You try to defend him and his actions!!"

Actually we're trying to protect him from your stupidity and inability to read between the lines and past the narrative. And the Darkling has become totally evil in the eyes of this fandom because:

A) the narrative really did him dirty. Always talking about his atrocities and villainous actions.

B) the fandom is really clueless and stupid about the ways of leadership and ruling and I will die on this hill. You have NO idea how treason must be handled, or political intrigues are working and it shows from the very first second you open your mouth. "The Darkling scarred Genya!" Welcome to the world of "treason is met with consequences". "The Darkling lied to Alina!" Welcome to the world of politics.

Also, it's the double standards that kill us. You forgive Kaz for killing people for money but spit on the Darkling for doing it for a selfless purpose. You love Nikolai for trying to usurp the throne, but hate the Darkling for doing the same when he did it to bring a change to Ravka.

The Darkling was an anti-villain. Anti-villains are characters with a noble, sympathetic goal but the means to achieve it is through violence. And these characters are meant to stir sympathy towards the reader and are, almost always, tragic characters.

Now whether someone forgives his actions or excuse his character is always up to the reader.

But let's not pretend like the heroes did better. Or the fact that you probably wanted him to act like a forgiving, kind-hearted fairy godmother after one thousand years full of shit to the point that he broke, said enough and stood up against the violence and atrocities his people were suffering from. He decided to fight fire with fire and I find that understandable, just like the majority of his supporters in this fandom.

[linkspooky]

Choso: Human or Curse?

One more meta for chapter 208, Choso's discussionYuki in the chapter bring up a question asked to us again and again by the plot of Jujutsu Kaisen? What exactly is a curse? What is a human? If curses have human intelligence does that make them more or less human? Fascinating questions all of these but for Choso it's a question of his existence itself, him being a human curse hybrid. Let's discuss this idea of humans and curses underneath the cut.

1. An Allegory Within the Dark

If you're looking for how much of Choso is human and how much is a curse, you could go the biological route. After all, Choso's true form is an aborted fetus. He wouldn't even have a body if Mahito had not stuck him in another person's body.

Choso is paradoxically, the oldest of nine brothers but he was never truly born. He is once again an aborted fetus. Presumably, Kenjaku made him either by ripping him out of his mother's womb before he was done, or he was a miscarriage at nine months, either way everything about his birth is unnatural and wrong, he even lives with the knowledge that he was only created because his mother was violated and experimented on. You could go so far as to say that the nine brothers are sort of a manifestation of their mother's "curse" towards the man who violated her.

Choso is human in the fact that unlike other cursed spirits, Choso has a physical body, and can interact with the world around him. Mahito for instance, despite being perhaps the most humanlike curse does not have a physical body and cannot be seen by non-sorcerers, whereas Choso can manifest in a physical body (even if it's not his own body), he can be seen by people, if you cut him he will bleed.

Mahito in fact provides a contrast to Choso, they are so different they may as well be opposites, Mahito is someone who strives to be a true curse whereas for Choso it is ambiguous and unknown to himself whether he is a curse or a human. Mahito if anything shares that ambiguity between his true nature of being a curse or being a human with Choso, because Mahito was created specifically not from the fears of natural forces, but the fears human beings have of each other.

Mahito is also the curse most curious about human emotions and human life, again unlike Jogo, Hanami and Dagon who are pure natural forces, Mahito watches human movies and reads human books as shown in his short story in he light novel.

For Mahito, who analyzed human souls through books and movies, this old man’s knowledge and conversation helped in its own way. When do humans get angry? Why do they grieve? How do they trust and in what ways are they betrayed? Mahito lived with a different sense of ethics compared to humans, so there were many things he struggled to interpret.

Mahito is literally created by human emotions, but he doesn't understand them and just like Choso he is effectively an outsider looking in, an alien in a society of human beings who understands nothing about them, to the point where they may as well be speaking an incomprehensible foreign language. They both make opposite choices however, Choso imitates humans and their relationships to one another by treating him and his brothers esentially like a normal human family, whereas Mahito destroys Junpei the one human he ever got close to, and then goes even further and tries to become something entirely inhuman.

In Mahito's mind the fights between humans and curses isn't a battle between good and evil, but rather a war where two different species are essentially fighting for what side will dominate the other.

If you go by Mahito's logic not only is being a curse not human, but it's at war with being human, Mahito defines himself as being not-human but can't leave it alone at that he also has to be the antithesis of humanity by making himself the polar opposite of Yuji, someone who slaughters humans without a thought the same way Yuji saves.

Mahito is made of human emotoins yet his desire is to be "a true curse" going so far as to want to essentially purify human emotions from himself, believing the only way he can be reborn as something more like a curse is to kill Yuji first someone who reminds him so much of himself. Why does Mahito want to go so far? I think he's driven to such extremes by fear. Remember, Mahito is made up of human emotions, he's created by fear, specifically the fear humans have for each other. When he loses to Yuji, that is what he's revealed to be. Afraid. A fleeing rabbit when he thought himself a wolf.

Mahito also reacts strangely when a human he thought it was safe to be around, a blind homeless man who gave up on life and therefore, did not really express any sort of emotions or attachment to the world, started to express a single emotion near his death.

Being able to make sure of that with his own two eyes, Mahito felt considerably relieved. In the same way he would watch a flower wither and fall, he observed the old man’s death.

Nevertheless…

“Jii-san?”

He had a feeling.

It’s like seeing a plot twist you don’t want to see if you keep turning the pages of a book.

Or like knowing the contents of a present before you open it.

That kind of buzz spread through Mahito’s chest.

While he puzzled over the instinctive alarm bells screaming at him to stop watching, everything was heading toward its end.

“…I thought I would die alone.”

The old man’s soul dimly flickered.

A smile was on his swollen face.

“…To have someone… here to witness this old fool’s last moments…”

The flicker might have been insignificant, like a single drop breaking the water’s surface. Even so, for an instant near death, at the end of it all…

The old man’s soul ‘metabolized’.

“…Tha…nk… y…”

The old man died smiling.

“…”

Mahito’s eyes opened wide, and for a moment, he was frozen.

He thought the old man was different when compared to other humans. To Mahito, he seemed unfettered.

Mahito thought the unique philosophical views stemming from such an extraordinary state of mind had freed him from all the shackles of this world.

But despite all of that, the old man was still captured right in his last moments.

On the brink of death, he clung to someone else so he could avoid a lonely end.

The old man was only human.

For a human, it was likely satisfying enough. Perhaps it was even the proper way for one to die.

“…”

Mahito said nothing.

Mahito's disappointed, almost downright disturbed by the human emotion the man shows in his final moments. This makes sense in regards to the way much stronger curses like Sukuna view human emotions, Sukuna calls the desires Jogo, Hanami and Mahito had to work together as a weakness.

Ishigori later on says that true strength is overhwelming aggression that disregards all else like a calamity. Therefore Mahito's, and also Sukuna's philosophy seems to be by ridding themselves of any human emotoins, they also rid themselves of any weak points and vulnerability in order to grow stronger. Which once again we return now to Choso, who says something incredibly similiar when he gives the reason why he chose to live as a curse at first.

He was too afraid to see his two younger brothers suffer as human beings, instead of dominating and killing everything in their path like a curse would. Yet, when he met Yuji he realized that Yuji was someone who was a hybrid much like him, but could choose to suffer and keep trying to live as a human. At that point Choso makes his mistake he tried to live as Mahito did, as Sukuna did. He tried to be like a curse, a calamity, someone who hurts others without thinking in order to prove how strong they were, yet in doing so he left Yuji all alone.

The super curse brothers clearly are meant to use their abilities together as a team, Choso can draw strength from his younger brothers and imitate them, and Yuji someone who insists on fighting alone could have had all three of them fighting alone as implacable allies.

Choso is a much more sympathetic character than Mahito, and yet he made the same choices earlier on in his arc, during Shibuya he essentially slaughtered people en masse both because the world of curses that Fake-Geto promised them was a place it would be easier to live than trying to survive among human beings. Mahito is frightened of human beings and human emotions themselves, wheras Choso is frightened of their rejection.

Choso is also not the perfect big brother he strives to be, he is weak moreoften then he is strong, Yuki points out right away that if he believed living as a curse was taking the easy way out and living as a human is the right choice then by choosing to die now he's taking the easy way out once more. Once again his wish to die is away of protecting himself, number one he will no longer have to feel the crushing force of his guilt, nor the sting of being alone, number two he won't have to do the hard work of living to atone for what he has done.

In that way Yuji and Choso are truly brothers, because Choso is now reflecting Yuji's worst tendency, despite the fact Choso believes Yuji is trying to live as a human he's really not, since the start of his arc Yuji has more or less been looking for the quickest exit out of this life.

How can Choso expect Yuji to do the work of continuing to live, if he's not even willing to do that? Which is utlimately I think, the difference between living as a curse and living as a human. As I said at the beginning of this post, unlike curses that are invisible tot he human eye, Choso has a physical body, he can be seen by people, he can reach out and touch people, if you cut him he bleeds. If living and dying as a curse is taking the easy way out, then the most difficult thing of all would be for Choso to just try to live in this world. Which is ultimately what he must do, for Yuji's sake, and for his own.

[kazisgirlfriend]

Following up on my post here, Callum seems to use Dark Magic in one of the few instances it could be considered ethical by the audience, because the writers avoid framing it in clearly objectionable terms.

The typical ethical concerns with dark magic are conveniently absent or minimized. He doesn’t kill any creatures for the magic, it’s an emergency life or death situation to save Rayla, and he’s already been corrupted by it before so the risks from further corruption are outweighed by saving a life. In sum, the potential objections that usually apply for Dark Magic are conveniently not applicable here. Instead, it's a situation where casting the Dark Magic spell is not only justifiable, but moral.

On top of that, contrary to being a slippery slope, the writers avoid portraying a clear moral descent. Callum's use is just a repetition of the exact same spell he performed in 2x07. It's a contained situation that he had already found himself in. If anything, his use of Dark Magic is even more controlled than it was before: instead of releasing the snake chains on the crew like he did in s2, Callum simply uses the spell for the narrow purpose of setting himself free, and then switches to primal magic from then on. So Callum simply repeats the same spell from before in identical high-stakes circumstances, and even shows more control by minimizing its usage.

In short, Callum's spell intentionally avoids the actual moral ambiguity from having to take a life (such as with Viren's Titan spell) or in using continuously more extreme forms of Dark Magic or for trivial uses (such as with Claudia).

The writers could have easily written a situation where Callum is escalating his use of dark magic, actually killing a life, or being tempted to use it further, but they opted not to. Instead, the writers seem to have intentionally crafted the situation to present dark magic in one of its most ethically defensible forms, and where Callum isn't doing anything he hadn't done before. By eliminating the elements most objectionable to the audience (killing creatures, frivolous usage), the writers encourage viewers to empathize with Callum's choice for the greater good.

[chimchiri]

I just LOVE your spitdash, the way you draw them (as much as the rest of your art, it’s amazing❤️‍🩹) And I'm wondering what was their first kiss like? Who took the initiative?

Oh god there are so many possibilities. But one of my fave hcs and 'main' AU for them is that it was actually Rainbow who took initiative.

I love to think Rainbow and Spitfire got along super well and became very close, even with their respective roles and power imbalance within the Wonderbolts. Same interests, same energy. Both appreciate each other's traits and both didn't expect to get along with the other that well.

Spitfire lets down her guard a bit too much and allows herself to be closer to Rainbow than she usually would (not romantically, just friendship-wise. She's still her captain all things considered). Because she didn't meet anyone yet that could match her in energy, adrenaline-seeking and interests. Plus I think she absolutely adores how unhinged and sometimes weird and quirky Rainbow can be.

So regarding the first kiss, I love that Rainbow's initial admiring crush of her celebrity turns into her falling intensely for Spitty, once she gets to know Spitfire more privately. Spitfire doesn't open up to anyone just like that. Her fascination grows, especially when they're alone, and Rainbow starts to sometimes sink into this almost dream-like state where she turns her surrounding off and feels her emotions so intensel. She doesn't really register half of what Spitfire's saying and just takes it all in. And within one of those dream states, she is starting to be completely lost in Spitfire's eyes and smile and then just... goes for it. Her brain is turned off. She solely follows her intense need to kiss her and barely registers what she's doing.

Until she separates and reality immediately crashes back in again. Both shocked. Rainbow a stuttering, apologizing mess, red as a tomato. And Spitfire clearly overwhelmed because she somehow did not see that coming. The kiss could have been anywhere, really. Them lying on the grass, on a cloud. Spending time somewhere and just sitting next to each other. Anything where the other team members aren't there.

I LOVE Rainbow falling victim to her desires and that being the catalyst for their romance starting (or at least the emotional turmoil). She's not good with being patient and holding back. On the other hand, I don't see Spitfire initiating anything because she values the WBs rules too much and wants to be an actual good role model. She isn't just the Wonderbolt's captain, she is the Wonderbolts - in the public eye at least. She represents them the most as their leader. Ethically ambiguous choices aren't her thing (at least in this main AU, there are definitely others where she could initiate).

Lastly I just love an inner struggle with both of them. Spitfire definitely has some feelings for Rainbow already once they kiss - and may be aware of them or not. But she definitely knows she can't date anyone within the team for a bazillion reasons. So she deals not only with her emotions, which now definitely came to surface, but also how to handle the interaction with Rainbow after the kiss.

I don't want to get into it too much (because this is already too long) but I also adore that Spitfire would in turn initiate their second kiss, which I imagine as a lot more passionate than the first, rather cute one. After the embarrassment, shame and guilt of her actions, Rainbow definitely won't go for a second one.

Listen there is so much potential for conflict and pining and I love it so so much....

[philosopher-blog]

True honor is rooted in a steadfast commitment to our core values and principles, even in the face of challenges or temptation. It's about consistently acting in alignment with what we believe is right and just, regardless of the circumstances. This includes being honest, showing integrity, and treating others with respect and compassion.

Staying true to our values and principles isn't always easy, especially when we are confronted with conflicting interests or pressures from others. It requires inner strength, courage, and a willingness to make difficult choices. It also means accepting responsibility for our actions and the impact they have on those around us.

When we live by our values and principles, we earn the respect and trust of others. Our words and actions become consistent, and people know they can rely on us to act with integrity and fairness. This reputation is a reflection of our true honor, and it can have a profound impact on our relationships and the communities in which we live and work.

Moreover, staying true to our values and principles aligns us with our authentic selves. It enables us to live with a clear conscience and a sense of purpose, knowing that our actions are in harmony with what we believe to be right. This inner peace and self-respect are invaluable, contributing to our overall well-being and personal fulfillment.

In essence, true honor is not just about how we present ourselves to others; it's about the authentic alignment of our thoughts, words, and deeds with the values and principles that guide us. It is a reflection of our character and integrity, and it serves as a compass in navigating the complexities of life.

Ultimately, true honor transcends personal gain or recognition. It's about upholding what we believe to be just and righteous, even when there are no external rewards. This kind of honor is timeless and universal, and it is deeply admired by others.

In a world that is often filled with competing priorities and moral ambiguity, true honor is a beacon of light. It inspires trust, brings people together, and fosters a sense of unity based on shared values. When individuals and communities honor their principles, they contribute to a more just and ethical society.

Moreover, true honor has the power to inspire and motivate others. When people witness individuals acting with integrity and courage, it encourages them to do the same. This ripple effect can create a positive and transformative impact, leading to a culture of honor and decency.

Staying true to our values and principles also helps us navigate difficult decisions and ethical dilemmas. When we have a strong moral compass, we are better equipped to make choices that align with what we believe to be right, even when the path is unclear or challenging.

In addition, the pursuit of true honor can be a lifelong journey of self-discovery and growth. It requires reflection, introspection, and a willingness to continually assess and refine our values and principles. It's a process of ongoing learning and development, as we strive to live more fully in accordance with our deepest convictions.

In the face of adversity, true honor can be a source of strength and resilience. It provides a solid foundation upon which to stand firm, even when the winds of opposition blow strong. When we hold fast to our values and principles, we demonstrate an unwavering commitment to what we believe is right, and that has the potential to galvanize others and effect positive change.

This is especially important in leadership. Leaders who embody true honor inspire confidence and trust among their followers. They set a powerful example for others to emulate, and they are able to make principled decisions that benefit the greater good.

Ultimately, true honor is a timeless and universal concept that transcends cultures, religions, and ideologies. It is a foundational element of human dignity and morality, and it serves as a guiding light for individuals and societies seeking to live with integrity and wisdom.

In conclusion, true honor comes from staying true to our values and principles. It is about embodying integrity, acting with courage, and upholding what we believe to be right and just. True honor inspires trust, fosters resilience, and has the power to transform individuals and communities for the better. It is a timeless and universal concept that serves as a beacon of light in a world that often faces moral challenges and uncertainties.

[kradogsrats]

Just leaving you this awkward voicemail to reassure you that yes. Your portrayal of 6-8 year olds is exponentially more believable than in Puzzle House.

I really enjoyed reading In With A Cry. Yeah I'm a Lissa stan, but I'm reallyyy looking forward to seeing Claudia become the same twisted-up tragedy of a person even without her dad alive to take the blame for manipulating her. heh heh heh

Anyways now uh ok byee *click*

aaaaaaa thank you

I do think Claudia is supposed to be precocious, probably to a ridiculous level, but she still has the emotional maturity of a six-year-old soooo... not doing great with those big feelings.

Anyway, it's actually kind of funny because they both wind up still growing up very much in Viren's shadow, but differently? Soren gets praise for showing what Lissa perceived as Viren's positive qualities, like selflessness, loyalty, and fierce defense of others... and Claudia gets disapproval and worry over manifesting what are seen as his negative qualities, like arrogance, disregard for authority, and, of course, interest in magic. So she doesn't develop the same people-pleasing "perfect daughter" bend that she has in canon, she's much more openly chaotic. And then Kpp'Ar is probably the worst person possible to teach her, because he's so personally fucked up about Viren, even years later.

Meanwhile literally everyone else around her is like... significantly softer and more emotionally stable than in canon, just because Sarai doesn't die lmao.

I probably won't actually write any Soren- or Claudia-centric stuff in this AU just because I know the vague shape of how they develop (Soren and Callum get married /finger guns), but particularly Sarai being alive changes the course of the world so much that like... literally every character has to have a completely different arc, and then there's the world politics: Avizandum is still alive, Zym may or may not have hatched by then under Zubeia's care, etc. So like, I "know" Claudia goes to Neolandia to study more dark magic (and be able to perform experiments with a level of ethical ambiguity impossible to pursue in Katolis) and ultimately gets involved with developing dark magic weapons meant to bring a decisive end to the war with Xadia, and then that blows up in her face (literally), all of this while Tressal hovers nervously in the background because Tressal is baby, but like... there isn't really much there to actually write besides scattered scenes, and if I'm going to write Claudia there's other things I'd rather be writing.

But yeah if you want to know how Claudia turns out, picture Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke but with like 1000% more war crimes.

[goodhorse413]

Problems of Incommensurability in Ethics

When I was a kid, like 5th grade years old, I independently invented utilitarianism in my head. It just seemed obvious to me that the best course of action was making as many people happy as possible, and that this could be quantified scientifically. When I was a middle schooler and I learned about dopamine, I was like, this is it. This is the objective scientific basis of morality. The very day I learned the term utilitarian I declared myself to be one.

Since then I've grown quite a bit, but I think my ethics have always remained more utilitarian than anything else. There are several things about utilitarianism that I find extremely persuasive.

Hedonism: The idea that absent other considerations, it's good to feel good and bad to feel bad, is completely undeniable to me. I really dislike the prevalence of intuition and assumptions in ethical philosophy, but I'm very confident that suffering is bad. You should minimize assumptions as much as possible in philosophy generally, but I don't think there's anything that could conceivably convince me that pain isn't painful.

Consequentialism: Follows naturally from hedonism. Non-consequentialist moralities have practical purposes, but everything reduces to consequentialism in the final analysis.

Virtues, duties, and maxims are all abstract concepts, and as a materialist, I don't really care much about abstract concepts. Consequences are real. Experiences are real. I've had experiences, and those experiences had valencies, in that some were good and some were bad. Good and bad are meaningless in my view unless they're applied to experiences.

All this said, there's something about utilitarianism that I don't like, and it's the reason I don't consider myself to be a utilitarian, even though I agree with the parts of it that utilitarians argue for. Utilitarian theory often makes the assumption that goodness/badness (let's call them positive and negative valency to borrow the language used by some modern utilitarians) are commensurable, and that when presented with some set of decisions, there is some decision which is always objectively better than every other decision. I don't think this follows from the premises of utilitarianism, just the opposite.

For starters, let's consider G.E. Moore's objection to the commensurability of ethical decisions, which is that goodness comes in multiple kinds, and you can't compare love, beauty, pleasure, and other things on one axis. This might be true. It might also not be true. Qualia are poorly understood. The "good" quality of these things might reduce to the same phenomenon, or multiple phenomena. I have no way of knowing. In any case, I think ambiguity still arises in utilitarianism even if all good things reduce to a single linear quantity.

This is because positive and negative valency are fundamentally incommensurable. Some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, some pains are more painful than others, and all pleasures are more pleasurable than all pains, so it seems that at least in certain circumstances (and possibly always) the positive valencies of two outcomes can be compared, and the negative valencies of two outcomes can be compared, but there is no quantity held in common between positive and negative valency that allows you to say that some quantity of positive valency balances out with some quantity of negative valency (a commonly raised objection), and vice versa (an objection I've never seen raised in my entire life).

Let's define a moral state-of-affairs as the set of the total positive and negative valencies of all conscious experiences within a particular region of spacetime. The units don't matter, because they can't be compared anyway. The state-of-affairs can be represented by a complex number, the real part of which represents the quantity of positive valency, and the imaginary part of which represents the quantity of negative valency. Now let's say the region of spacetime in the following example is a dinner party that lasts six hours.

Let's say that if a certain partygoer acts normally at the party, the moral state-of-affairs will be 100+5i, with 100 being the fun and laughter and good-times and 5i being the unpleasant noise and the discomfort one girl experiences from unrelated menstrual cramps. If said certain partygoer decides to go apeshit and shank the party's host in the abdomen right after arriving, the moral state-of-affairs is instead 4+350i. There's a lot less fun, and a lot more suffering. In this situation, one state of affairs is objectively superior to the other. Going apeshit and shanking the host is objectively an immoral thing for the partygoer to do. This happens to coincide with intuition, which is unsurprising but also irrelevant.

Now let's imagine that our certain partygoer goes apeshit in a different way. He brings a shit ton of tequila (let's say the party otherwise would have had little drinking) and encourages everyone to get smashed as hell. Most partygoers get very drunk and the night becomes more intense. Everybody's yelling, telling stupid jokes, a couple hooks up, I don't know, I don't go to parties, but as a result of all the drinking, one guy who would have otherwise been chill decides to start a fight with a guy he hates. They get heated, say ill-advised things to each other under the influence, and one of them hits the other. He's not severely injured, but it's still a bad time not just for him, but for a lot of spectators as well. After that, the party goes back to its more cheery state. The total moral state-of-affairs in this timeline clocks in at 180+31i. There was more positive valency than in the normal timeline, so it was objectively more good. But there was also more negative valency, so it was also objectively more bad. Keep in mind that these are unitless, and I could multiply all of the numbers for either the real or imaginary parts by any coefficient, and it wouldn't change anything as long as I did it for all states of affairs. So don't go thinking "well 80 is greater than 26 so that's where you should draw the line". It's arbitrary.

The point is that even though certain states-of-affairs can be objectively better than others, sometimes you cannot objectively compare two states-of-affairs. There are possible solutions to this dilemma you could come up with. You could take the walking-away-from-Omelas position and say that negative valency automatically takes precedence, and that no amount of positive valency ever justifies even the slightest increase in negative valency, but then you'd have to start advocating for the end of the world and the death of all sentient beings. You could say the opposite, and claim that positive valency automatically takes precedence, and that no amount of negative valency ever makes the slightest amount of pleasure not worth it, but that would result in some pretty cruel behavior (although your behavior would be pretty in line with that of a lot of capitalist enterprises). Finally, you could declare an arbitrary relation that accords with your intuition, and say "this is the amount of pain which is worth enduring for this given amount of pleasure", and that would result in less disastrous scenarios, but in the end that relation has to be arbitrary.

The idea I'm pursuing here is that moral ambiguity is real, and that accepting that morality is based on really-existing things and that some things are objectively wrong does not necessarily mean that moral dilemmas do not exist, or even that they're not common. This shouldn't be too surprising if you really think about it. We encounter moral ambiguity constantly in our daily lives, it doesn't really seem that absurd or counterintuitive that sometimes there is an objectively right answer, and sometimes there isn't, but I'm not sure I've ever seen an ethical philosopher admit it.

[gkt-tummyaches]

you said brute would think of bubbles as lesser than, what would be bubbles view on brute?

i don't really know ? i think she sides with blossom over the fact that brute isn't somebody safe to be around - but i see her worrying more for buttercup's well being in regard to her ties with brute.

there's a distance between bubbles and the idea of who brute is because they don't interact basically ever. most of the information she gets is from blossom and buttercup; two very different opinions, as you can imagine. i think she'd be more inclined to agree with blossom overall though, due to blossom having a more clinical approach to it. unaffected by any kind of biases, etc.

and bubbles isn't really ready to explore her own views and ideas on the subject out of fear that she might discover something about herself that'd alienate herself from her sisters further.

what she does know is brute is dangerous. blossom doesn't tend to make claims like that unless they have substantial evidence. it's worth taking both sides with a pinch of salt; all bubbles knows is she doesn't want to know brute after the atrocious scroll-unravelling-across-the-floor length list of crimes she's committed.

bubbles probably frames her view as something ambiguous/open for the sake of being in buttercup's corner when needed. in reality, she just wants to stay as far away from that clusterfuck of relations as possible. a generous dose of appal thinly-veiled by tolerance.

to be honest, there's maybe like a few times they've been in the same room together, and she'd been unnerved just by the sight of brute. it's like she was seen straight through. something about her is cold and unmoving in an inexplicable fashion, and yet bubbles couldn't pull her eyes away. the distinct sensation of being caught in crosshairs.

there'd probably be more indignation if bubbles knew how brute thought of her, but for the most part she's just greatly unsettled. i think that could quiet easily escalate into fear and helplessness if given the opportunity: she's lucky brute doesn't care about her enough to even toy with her like she does others.

// sorry i don't really have a lot to say about it. it's a general consensus that most of them just avoid brute because she's on an entire other level of fucked up and ethically deplorable. even butch and buttercup aren't exempt from those feelings of disquietude or abject horror at times. they're all superhuman, sure, but brute's ability to portray herself as more than that (even if she's not) is uncanny even to the remaining eight. i just think brute's awful and i love her !! 💚

[crossovershipstournament]

Okay, I got some good Beastweaver ship propaganda!

So, Lifeweaver once attended Academy owned by the Vishkar corporation. Vishkar is dubious organization that may or may not actually be "evil" (its ambiguous). But, for a short while, Lifeweaver worked for Vishkar which means that for a short while, Lifeweaver was aligned with the villains.

Beastman used to be Skeletor's most loyal subordinate. He was definitely a villain.

Lifeweaver left on backpacking trip around the world and saw first hand how corporate greed was destroying the planet. What he saw affected him so deeply that Lifeweaver left Vishkar and instead devoted his technology and his efforts to healing the world.

After Skeletor's death, all of his followers scattered. Beastman was left to wander. At some point he rejoined with Evil-Lyn (Skeletor's second-in-command) and the two of them joined forces with the surviving heroes to save their own dying world.

Beastman and Lifeweaver are on the same track. They are both people who have experience on both sides of the line. They see the gray areas in ethics and are trying their hardest to grow and be better, to become the best possible versions of themselves and "grown into who they truly are".

That can support each other and grow together.

And in the end, isn't that what true love is?

VOTE BEASTWEAVER IN THE POLLS!

👆

[gnbrkrs]

Some thoughts on Emet-Selch, Crystal Exarch, their roles as mirrors and how Shadowbringers is not quite a good vs evil story

I find it interesting that a lot of people miss a lot of the moral ambiguity about the Crystal Exarch/ Emet-Selch conflict in Shadowbringers because of the one thing about the former that isn't shown in much detail, which is the bad timeline and the opinions of it's denizens.

Although it is never addressed directly, and their belief in what is best for Etheirys was unquestionable, it is highly unlikely that he or the bad timeline Ironworks asked or had the opportunity to ask every person on the planet at the time if they agreed to be erased from existence for the sake of a better future that they would not see (yes, we do eventually find out that the timeline stayed intact, but that was their initial prediction in case of success and there was no way the could have known until after the fact). And just like the Scions in response to the Ascians, I doubt absolutely everyone would have agreed to give their existence up no matter how bad their life was and how much better the past would have appeared.

Both want to achieve a similar goal (reviving a better past and creating new paths from there). Both are willing to sacrifice other people for it (who may or may not agree with their vision of a greater future, although one could argue that Emet's way of restoring his world is a lot slower, more painful for those being sacrificed and therefore more evil) because of their attachment to the way things were before everything went to hell. The more one thinks about the bad timeline, the more these characters look like mirrors to each other, and yet a lot of people treat Shadowbringers as a more clear-cut good vs evil story, seeing Crystal Exarch as the unambiguously heroic and Emet-Selch as the tragic, but complete villain. And although one could make an argument that the latter's path ends up saving more lives in terms of numbers, it also requires taking a stance on several philosophical and ethical questions (namely whether one has the right to decide who lives and who dies, or the moral implications of saving certain people at the expense of others) to which the world may not have a definite answer. Which only makes the whole situation more interesting to observe from the sidelines.

While Emet-Selch's desire to restore Amaurot is made painfully clear to us, from our perspective it is still the past, which different players may or may consider to be worth the sacrifice, but a lot would agree that in the end, the cost is too great and he must be stopped. At the same time, the past G'raha/ Exarch is trying to save is our present, the world as we know it and are attached to, as well as the one we have just arrived to, and is clearly on our side. This would make a lot of players sympathize with him on for that reason alone. In addition to that, the bad timeline isn't much shown beyond how people were suffering, as well as the Ironworks' generations-long work to make time travel possible, which already makes erasing the bad timeline look like a mercy. It's even possible that the way we see it is not so different from the way the Ascians see the post-Sundering world. But what is easy to miss in both perspectives is that there are people who want to keep on living despite the misery. And judging by how both are viewed in rather emotionally colored perceptions, no one, whether that is G'raha, Emet-Selch, or us as the player, is immune to flaws in judgement.

If one looks beneath the surface, I think Shadowbringers could also be a great look into how susceptible people are to personal biases and attachments, and how it affects one's judgement, not only by showing us characters who are going through those things, but also by making the players experience the same thing, even though it may not be obvious at first. When one takes some distance from the situation, it may turn out that the enemy is not as different as one thinks they are. And while people may draw different conclusions from this, it is interesting to see that the themes portrayed in the plot itself can also apply to the player and not just the characters in the story.

[textualviolence]

wrt to the last post, this isn't to say that the trash literature for perverts moniker necessarily excludes the possibility of toboso being conscious of themes, but rather to point out that we don't know whats in her mind and that both readings are equally coherent and have the same degree of explanatory power, but lead to different positions regarding the value and function of the work. However i do think that both readings necessitate a full experience of the ambiguity and back-and-forth states of horror and safety without cleaving off one or the other in order to preserve the illusion of one unique, stable "ethical self". And that if you allow yourself to experience both you will necessarily also experience both the pleasures of sexually deviant titillation and the pleasures of forced moral and intellectual suspension at the same time, can't have one without the other even if you want to. My word. Even the stage of aesthetic judgement requires you to tolerate ambiguity. *closes eyes and falls asleep forever*

[hymnsofheresy]

What are Jewish beliefs about sex? For example is it permitted outside marriage or is it considered sinful?

There is a spectrum of understanding when it comes to sex in pretty much every religion. Sex isn't considered sinful in Judaism the same way it is in most Christian paradigms. In general, in Jewish spheres, the ethics surrounding premarital sex is far more ambiguous than in Christianity. I recommend talking to a Jewish person who knows about this.

[inspiteallthedanger]

Anon on tinhatting. I consider myself a shipper in that shipping is a part of fandom I enjoy. I read fanfic and meta and enjoy reading people's theories and exploring my own. I don't consider myself a shipper in that I don't have any set ideas about the reality of John and Paul's relationship. What I said in my ask (I believe John was interested in men and making the leap to him being interested in Paul on some level feels perfectly logical) is the most I feel certain of.

I think you're question of "where is the line?" is the core of what I was trying to articulate. I don't know what experience you have in other rpf fandoms, but the outline I gave is hugely informed by the stuff I've seen in fandoms like One Direction and Supernatural rpf. I'm in my late twenties, I've been in fandom since I was 12. And decent handful of those fandoms were rpfs. And it's shocking how quickly shipping theories spiral into conspiracy theories which often quickly turn toxic. And equally shocking is how, after you've been in one or two of those fandoms, you realize all those conspiracy theories look exactly the same.

I want to make clear, I think the Mclennon/Beatles fandom is 1000x better than any rpf fandom I've ever been in before. The premium placed on well sourced evidence is amazing and the openness to ambiguity is wonderful. But when that other anon said how they were occasionally uncomfortably reminded of larries, I felt that. So what I was trying to articulate in my last ask was those moments when I feel like things teeter close to that line.

What I was trying to point to with the song lyrics stuff was the reciprocal nature of the more conspiracists bent. If that makes sense? Theorizing that "in my life" is about Paul and romantic makes perfect sense. As does compiling evidence to try to support that theory. But, unless your evidence is 100% rock solid there is no other plausible theory, turning around and using "in my life" being about Paul as evidence in another theory is, for me, based on other fandom conspiracies I've seen, where things go from thoughtful fandom meta to uncomfortable tinhat rabbit hole. Same with the lying stuff. It's fine to assess if someone's telling the truth, but when dealing with real people, I do think there's an ethical obligation to double check whether your cognitive bias is encouraging you to dismiss the legitimacy of someone's report on their lived experience. It's not the analysis that slides into tinhattery, it's the willingness to discount evidence that doesn't fit a narrative you've already decided on. And over inflate evidence that does.

I maybe shouldn't have tacked on the platonic relationship stuff because it really isn't specific to John/Paul. It's just that the kind of "if not than why?" stuff always starts to drain on me and make me as an ace/aro person feel unwelcome in fandom spaces. Fandom is so romance centered in a way that most other fiction (besides romance novels and romcoms) really isn't. This isn't just a mlm thing either. I was talking about this with Mulder/Scully in X-Files fandom the other day. So that feeling for me is way bigger than tinhattery.

But I do think that kind of leads into the "loves of each other's lives" stuff. Because it's another thing that's really born out of lifelong fandom. The "one truest love" thing is such a fandom staple. It's basically in the DNA of fanfiction. And that's great! I like a "one true love" thing too. But when applied to real people it gets stickier. If that makes sense? And I don't think it comes out in any one way in practice necessarily (well, occasionally it does, I did once see someone say that Linda was great for Paul because she accepted that John would always be the most important person in his life). It's more the general, meeting to death, feeling you occasionally get from fandom sometimes. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the theory (sometimes I buy meeting to death), but it's impossible not to recognize how based in the standard fandom blueprint it is. And once you notice that the idea of when either one of them "got over" the other rarely, if ever, gets discussed as even a possibility, that standard fandom stuff starts to feel somewhat insidious.

I want to reiterate that I think this fandom is way better than any rpf fandom I've been in before. It's just these hints of conspiracy that peak through every once and a while.

I hope this all made sense. I'm about to go to bed so sorry if it's phrased weird

Hello again anon, and thanks for coming back. I know a lot of people were interested in hearing what you had to say, so we'll all appreciate the clarifications.

What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me. I can see that you'd be on edge from other fandoms, even if you've not seen the exact same behaviour here.

You're right that I've seen a lot less of the weird conspiracy stuff here than I've witnessed (at a distance) in other rpf fandoms (in fact the two you mention seem to be the worst of them). This isn't my first rpf fandom, but my first was very chill, much like this is. Here, there's not really lots and lots of disagreement that the men loved their partners or were really with them. Which I know isn't the case everywhere. Honestly, that's something that would really put me off.

And that's before we get into the really weird stuff people end up saying in other fandoms.

Yes, building theories on top of theories is very classic in conspiracy theories everywhere. It's something that it's important to look out for, for sure. I guess, I always take anything in fandom as not being 100% true, unless we have a lot of sources for it. Even John's sexuality, which does seem to be the most clear, we can't be sure of. And we certainly don't know how he felt or identified.

I also get what you mean about OPT thing. Like, real life doesn't work like that. It's not something that I've ever felt compelled towards, to be honest. I'm personally comfortable that people can love multiple people at once. Or, indeed, you can love someone so much it makes you insane... but it can still go away.

Anyway, I think you're right in all of this. I agree that I've only seen a little of what you're talking about actually done in this fandom. But, I do think it's worth checking in with yourself about it. Like, as I say, people should have fun. But, when you start taking things really seriously, start believing you have the 'one truth' that's where it starts to justify weird, invasive behaviour. Like commenting on the guys' or families' social media posts.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Golden Rule and Its Limitations: Navigating Ethical Challenges

The Golden Rule, which suggests treating others as you would like to be treated, is a fundamental ethical principle found in various forms in many cultures and religions. However, like any moral guideline, it has its limitations and challenges:

Assumption of Universality: The Golden Rule assumes that what one person wants or considers ethical is equally applicable to others. It can neglect the diversity of values and preferences in different individuals and cultures.

Projection of Personal Preferences: People might apply the Golden Rule based on their own preferences, assuming others share the same desires. This projection of personal values can lead to misunderstandings or even harm.

Cultural and Individual Differences: Cultures and individuals vary significantly in their values and expectations. What is considered respectful or kind in one culture may be considered rude or offensive in another. This can create misunderstandings when applying a one-size-fits-all rule.

Imposition of Values: The Golden Rule can inadvertently impose one person's values on another. It might not account for situations where people have different needs, desires, or values.

Reciprocity Assumption: The rule assumes that individuals reciprocate kindness and respect. However, this isn't always the case. Kindness may not always be met with kindness, leading to disappointment.

Subjectivity: The rule relies on each person's subjective interpretation of how they wish to be treated. This subjectivity can lead to ambiguity and miscommunication.

Overlooking Power Dynamics: In situations where there are power imbalances, such as in employer-employee relationships or international politics, applying the Golden Rule without considering these dynamics may perpetuate inequality.

Lack of Specificity: The rule lacks specificity and guidance for complex moral dilemmas. It doesn't offer clear answers to challenging ethical questions.

Context Matters: The appropriateness of a specific action can depend on the context. What might be considered kind in one situation may not be in another.

Ethical Relativism: Some critics argue that the Golden Rule can contribute to ethical relativism, where individuals justify their actions based on their perspective of what they would want in a given situation.

While the Golden Rule provides a valuable starting point for ethical decision-making, it should be applied with sensitivity to the context and with an understanding of its limitations. It's just one tool in the broader landscape of ethical philosophy, and its application should be considered alongside other ethical principles and cultural norms.

[the-empress-7]

I don't know if you have been following the Jesy Nelson/Little Mix/Leigh Anne controversy.

Jessie was a member of the British girl band, little mix, made up of three white women and one black woman(Leigh Anne). Jessie wanted to go solo for a long while, but didn't know how to go about it without being dragged. So what does she do? She goes on a pity tour telling everyone how she was depressed while in the group and how being in the group was affecting her mental health and how she became suicidal because social media trolls were always talking about her weight and comparing her to the other ladies.

Throughout her tour, she never hinted that she wanted to go solo. Her band mates didn't know she was secretly negotiating a record deal with Republic Records, the same label that has Nicki Minaj. So when her pity tour was over, she suddenly cut off communication with all her band mates and they didn't understand what was going on. Few weeks after her pity tour was over, it was announced that she has signed a record deal and would be releasing her first single featuring Nicki Minaj.

She released her single and it was met with much derision because people didn't recognise her as she was not looking like a white woman again but someone racially ambiguous. She wore braids in the music video and was singing about how she loves hood men. She was accused of blackfishing and culture appropriation. Nicki Minaj then hopped on IG to defend her and slam Leigh Anne, an actual black woman who has suffeeed much racial abuse. Everyone took Leigh Anne's side and now Jesy Nelson is scrambling.

Jesy Nelson just followed the Meghan Markle playbook to a T and it backfired. Instead of coming out boldly to say she wants to go solo, Jesy started claiming she was suicidal and threw the other ladies under the bus. Instead of Meg to say she wants to pursue commercial deals, she started claiming racism abuse and using mental health as an excuse. How Meg was able to successfully con people into being afraid of calling her out for fear of being called racist, needs to be studied.

Now they are trying to strike deals all over the place and rather than owning it with their full chest, they are being hypocritical and saying its ethical investment and they are doing it to change the world. So nauseating. Maria Carey is known to be a diva and she owns it with her full chest. She doesn't pretend to be what she isn't. With her, what you see is what you get.

Why don't the Sussexes just admit that they are doing a money grab? Why do they cloak their hustling with social justice and ethical investment? Why are they insulting our intelligence?

I haven't been following the Little Mix drama, I had no idea she was using M's playbook.

The only time they were truthful about their intention was on the Megxit website, they put down in writing that they were leaving to make money.