Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Okay, the ol' bean clicks. Or, as they say in Finland, one pea found another.
I read the rest of the thread, and now I think I get what you're saying, dte.
In many real life situations, decisions *are,* indeed, binary. A defendant is guilty, or not guilty, or there's a mistrial. You take the left fork of the road, or the right one, or stay where you are, or return where you came from. Any deliberations leading to the decision can be as complicated as you want, but ultimately they have some unambiguous outcome that precludes other outcomes. Is this what you're saying? If so, it's certainly hard to disagree with.
The trouble is that that's an incomplete view. Trials don't involve just "guilty/not guilty." They also involve sentencing -- death, life w/o parole, 15-life, 10, 5, parole, acquittal, or something in-between. What's more, sometimes there isn't even a trial, such as in war, or with an executioner doing his job. That's not a binary choice; it's a continuum, and it reflects the continuum between totally unacceptable and commendable that I've been talking about.
And moral decisions are even more fluid than trials -- they're all about continua. You refusing to hire a black man because he's black is worse than you calling him a nigger, which, IMO, is worse than him calling you cracker after you refused him a job for being black. Some of these, IMO, should go to court (you refusing to hire him because he's black), some might or might not (you calling him a nigger), others probably not (him calling you a cracker). That's another continuum: while I don't consider any of these things acceptable, I find some definitely less acceptable than others.
I read the rest of the thread, and now I think I get what you're saying, dte.
In many real life situations, decisions *are,* indeed, binary. A defendant is guilty, or not guilty, or there's a mistrial. You take the left fork of the road, or the right one, or stay where you are, or return where you came from. Any deliberations leading to the decision can be as complicated as you want, but ultimately they have some unambiguous outcome that precludes other outcomes. Is this what you're saying? If so, it's certainly hard to disagree with.
The trouble is that that's an incomplete view. Trials don't involve just "guilty/not guilty." They also involve sentencing -- death, life w/o parole, 15-life, 10, 5, parole, acquittal, or something in-between. What's more, sometimes there isn't even a trial, such as in war, or with an executioner doing his job. That's not a binary choice; it's a continuum, and it reflects the continuum between totally unacceptable and commendable that I've been talking about.
And moral decisions are even more fluid than trials -- they're all about continua. You refusing to hire a black man because he's black is worse than you calling him a nigger, which, IMO, is worse than him calling you cracker after you refused him a job for being black. Some of these, IMO, should go to court (you refusing to hire him because he's black), some might or might not (you calling him a nigger), others probably not (him calling you a cracker). That's another continuum: while I don't consider any of these things acceptable, I find some definitely less acceptable than others.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540