These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

What do you do?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#21 - 2012-02-22 15:06:53 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.


Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option?

If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond.


That fits very much into the 'You have the power to stop it' situation. Sadly, these conditions do not always exist (space enough between the people to situate yourself in, and either side being willing to talk to the other). In cases where they do not, you need to decide at what point you are going to stop and withdraw to allow the massacre to happen, or disregard the wishs of both groups in order to do what's morally right.


You can only go so far and do so many things that are within your limitations, regardless of size or position. Unfortunately not every scenario can end in a win. Relocation or interference can be met with outright hostility, till you find yourself at war with the people you tried to protect. Choice must sadly in some cases be respected, but only after all alternatives have been exhausted.

Problem is too few people have the patience to go through all the alternatives and merely resort to the quick easy solution.


It's in the place where you have to choose one hand or the other where you see what is more important to a person. Of course other avenues should be exhausted, but when it comes down to these peoples lives and their free will, you have chosen their free will as the more important factor, and they have ended up dead.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#22 - 2012-02-22 15:12:06 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
It's in the place where you have to choose one hand or the other where you see what is more important to a person. Of course other avenues should be exhausted, but when it comes down to these peoples lives and their free will, you have chosen their free will as the more important factor, and they have ended up dead.


You only know that in hindsight. As I said not every scenario can end in a win. Should you choose to deny their free will they may turn against you and in self defence you're forced to kill them, and they have ended up dead anyway.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Jev North
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-02-22 15:25:48 UTC
Well, speaking of the failure of Pilot Inhonores' scenario to touch on real-world situations..

If we want to drag Nation philosophy into this, and it tends to be dragged in kicking and screaming wherever a certain word starting with "m" and ending in "orality" comes up, said scenario would need a few more adaptations.. hm. How about the aggressors not wanting to kill the villagers, but wanting to drag them off for slave labor instead. But it's very safe slave labor, nice and deep in the bowels of a mine somewhere, and the capturees are on a permanent opiate IV, so they'll be docile and basically burbling with enjoyment the whole time.

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
#24 - 2012-02-22 15:44:42 UTC
Ah, how typically Gallentean.

The truth is that you're just indulging in self-adulation. You are the party in a position of power in this scenario. You get to make the life and death decisions. So, the ONLY answer is to do what serves YOU best, not what's best for the backward little peasants on the surface.

This little intellectual dance you're doing here is still about the Federation, about who you want to pretend to be, and how you want others to perceive you.

The fact that you don't actually know exposes just how weak your civilization really is.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#25 - 2012-02-22 15:45:37 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
It's in the place where you have to choose one hand or the other where you see what is more important to a person. Of course other avenues should be exhausted, but when it comes down to these peoples lives and their free will, you have chosen their free will as the more important factor, and they have ended up dead.


You only know that in hindsight. As I said not every scenario can end in a win. Should you choose to deny their free will they may turn against you and in self defence you're forced to kill them, and they have ended up dead anyway.


We are starting to stray away from the original thought experiment that Mssr. Inhonores proposed.

Pretend all other options have been exhausted. You have already put yourself between the two tribes, and this has failed. The aggressor tribe is not interested in diplomacy, and wants only to destroy the defender tribe. The defenders, in no uncertain terms, have told you to leave.

Do you follow the cause of free will, let one side choose to slaughter while the other side chooses to be slaughtered, or do you intervene against the wishes of both, and save the lives of the defender tribe, even if they hate you for it?

Thats the limits of the thought experiment. The idea is to make you decide between two bad positions. You have already lost, and you are now asked to choose how you will lose.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#26 - 2012-02-22 15:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Caellach Marellus
I think at this point we're also changing the scenario. For clarification have the Elders asked you to leave the village or the entire planet?

Because you can act to prevent it without upsetting the former, and the latter is unreasonable that they make demands beyond their jurisdiction.


Ah the joy of hypothetical scenarios.


Edit:

Esan Vartesa wrote:
Ah, how typically Gallentean.

The truth is that you're just indulging in self-adulation. You are the party in a position of power in this scenario. You get to make the life and death decisions. So, the ONLY answer is to do what serves YOU best, not what's best for the backward little peasants on the surface.


With power comes responsibility, if you can't see beyond your own interests then that's your prerogative to serve yourself. Not everyone is like you though.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#27 - 2012-02-22 16:13:21 UTC
Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise?
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#28 - 2012-02-22 16:22:59 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise?


I think you're misunderstanding the parameters, hence why I would like clarification from the General as to the exact specifications. Right now we're playing guesswork.

From what I understood it the Peacekeepers are not welcome in the village. Anything they do outside of there is their own choice to make and not subject to criticism from the locals. From your understanding they're not welcome on the planet and any interference of any kid is going to offend.


Two very very different situations.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#29 - 2012-02-22 16:24:54 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise?


I think you're misunderstanding the parameters, hence why I would like clarification from the General as to the exact specifications. Right now we're playing guesswork.

From what I understood it the Peacekeepers are not welcome in the village. Anything they do outside of there is their own choice to make and not subject to criticism from the locals. From your understanding they're not welcome on the planet and any interference of any kid is going to offend.


Two very very different situations.


The thought experiment is itself in the choice, Caellach. It isn't asking 'How could this have been avoided', it's 'Now that you have this awful choice to make, which do you pick'.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#30 - 2012-02-22 16:36:02 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise?


I think you're misunderstanding the parameters, hence why I would like clarification from the General as to the exact specifications. Right now we're playing guesswork.

From what I understood it the Peacekeepers are not welcome in the village. Anything they do outside of there is their own choice to make and not subject to criticism from the locals. From your understanding they're not welcome on the planet and any interference of any kid is going to offend.


Two very very different situations.


The thought experiment is itself in the choice, Caellach. It isn't asking 'How could this have been avoided', it's 'Now that you have this awful choice to make, which do you pick'.


So basically you're throwing the entire scenario out of the window and asking me what I'd choose in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." scenario instead?

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#31 - 2012-02-22 16:44:03 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:

So basically you're throwing the entire scenario out of the window and asking me what I'd choose in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." scenario instead?


I'm saying that's what you were presented with. Hes asking you a very specific question at the end of the OP.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#32 - 2012-02-22 16:47:39 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:

So basically you're throwing the entire scenario out of the window and asking me what I'd choose in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." scenario instead?


I'm saying that's what you were presented with. Hes asking you a very specific question at the end of the OP.


I disagree with your interpretation. I believe there are plenty of options in the original scenario and that you can be lead to a positive outcome. Your recent posts have changed said scenario and asked me what I'd do in your alternative no win hypothesis.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#33 - 2012-02-22 17:09:27 UTC
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.

The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.

However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.

What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?


I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded.
Drasden
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-02-22 17:10:42 UTC
When the village elders say they don't want the army there, I smile and nod. Then have them incarcerated until everything blows over.

My next step is to send a diplomatic party to the other village, preferably escorted by at least one piece of machinery capable of leveling the entire village within 24 hours. I have the diplomats make it very clear that we want peace, but aren't going to screw around. Doubtless an agreement will be reached, but I will maintain some military presence in both villages regardless until it is clear they intend to follow it.

If they decide to break that agreement, I launch and record an orbital bombardment of the aggressor village.

The next time I am called to settle a dispute between two warring villages, I show them the video.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#35 - 2012-02-22 17:15:52 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?


I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded.


So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?"

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#36 - 2012-02-22 17:16:51 UTC
Drasden wrote:
When the village elders say they don't want the army there, I smile and nod. Then have them incarcerated until everything blows over.

My next step is to send a diplomatic party to the other village, preferably escorted by at least one piece of machinery capable of leveling the entire village within 24 hours. I have the diplomats make it very clear that we want peace, but aren't going to screw around. Doubtless an agreement will be reached, but I will maintain some military presence in both villages regardless until it is clear they intend to follow it.

If they decide to break that agreement, I launch and record an orbital bombardment of the aggressor village.

The next time I am called to settle a dispute between two warring villages, I show them the video.


See, this guy? He made a choice.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#37 - 2012-02-22 17:17:59 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?


I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded.


So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?"


It's very clearly "What do you prefer? Intervening even where you aren't wanted, or letting people handle their own affairs unmolested even if the choice they would make is disastrous."
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#38 - 2012-02-22 17:22:37 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?


I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded.


So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?"


It's very clearly "What do you prefer? Intervening even where you aren't wanted, or letting people handle their own affairs unmolested even if the choice they would make is disastrous."


My understanding of the hypothetical scenario was that you were made unwelcome in the village you were trying to protect, anything you do outside of the village's jurisdiction is not for them to debate, it's not their area you're operating in anymore.

To which case see my reply much earlier on in this discussion.

If you're telling me one village has complete jurisdiction over the planet? Well apart from being somewhat unrealistic (if they had jurisdiction they wouldn't be under threat from a single rival) and the fact you have to act without the benefit of hindsight the choice is simple. You already have an agreement and they ask you to adhere to it, there's no further debate in that position. But I still find the fact one village has the run of an entire planet to be unlikely.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Ares Renton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-02-22 18:13:24 UTC
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.

The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.

However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.

What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?


Sounds like your society is about to collapse. Civil wars are going on and your government isn't even powerful enough to intervene.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#40 - 2012-02-22 19:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
That kind of decision depends on what you put the emphasis on. Most of them are a specific trait in the equation.

Here is a non exhaustive list of what I consider essential :



  • Quantitative mass equality : how many lives will you save and how many will you condemn by getting involved in the conflict ? The base theory here is that any life is equal in value to another one.

  • Qualitative elitist disparity : If all lives are not equal and some are more important than others, which decision will protect the highest coefficient/average ?

  • Stability and balance : what will cost you the most in terms of stability and social upheaval between the involvement in the conflict against the invading Nation and the decision to remain out of it ?

  • Ethical paradoxes : if the Federation defends free will, will you sacrifice your ideals about free will and favor your ideals about justice, or will you do the opposite ? In either case, a part of your ideals are lost.


Eventually though, all these general considerations do not last well in specific cases and scenarios, which are all quite unique and require deeper analysises.

Note : involving in the conflict does not necessarily mean to defend the invaded nation, but this will hold a high probability for said nation to be invaded nevertheless.
Previous page123Next page