![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Philosophy and Ethics
Apr. 8th, 2012 08:45 pmI'd be interested in some discussion about a particular subject.
Is there a fundamental difference in these two scenarios that makes one "evil" and the other "heroic"?
1. A sorceress desires power above all else. In order to get it, she must kill the person she loves the most and use their body in a spell that will give her immense power (assume for the sake of argument that there is no other means available to her that she can possibly think of). She does so; she gets what she wants, but is scarred for life.
2. A sorceress desires the safety of the kingdom she is a part of, above all else. In order to save it from a deadly spell cast on it by a rival sorceress, she must kill the person she loves the most and use their body in a spell that reverses her rival's sorcery (assume for the sake of argument that there is no other means available to her that she can possibly think of). She does so; she gets what she wants, but is scarred for life.
Why is the first scenario readily thought of as "evil," while the second scenario is readily thought of as tragically "heroic"? Really, the sacrifice is the same in both cases. Is it just a case of "ends justify the means"?
Keep in mind that even the "evil" sorceress is forever scarred by her deed. You can assume that she never feels good about it, any more than the "good" sorceress. They suffer equal consequences for their choices. But one is reviled and the other celebrated.
I have my own opinion about why this is, but I want to hear others' opinions. I'm trying to determine if this is a question about philosophy or if it's a valid ethical question.
Thoughts?
Is there a fundamental difference in these two scenarios that makes one "evil" and the other "heroic"?
1. A sorceress desires power above all else. In order to get it, she must kill the person she loves the most and use their body in a spell that will give her immense power (assume for the sake of argument that there is no other means available to her that she can possibly think of). She does so; she gets what she wants, but is scarred for life.
2. A sorceress desires the safety of the kingdom she is a part of, above all else. In order to save it from a deadly spell cast on it by a rival sorceress, she must kill the person she loves the most and use their body in a spell that reverses her rival's sorcery (assume for the sake of argument that there is no other means available to her that she can possibly think of). She does so; she gets what she wants, but is scarred for life.
Why is the first scenario readily thought of as "evil," while the second scenario is readily thought of as tragically "heroic"? Really, the sacrifice is the same in both cases. Is it just a case of "ends justify the means"?
Keep in mind that even the "evil" sorceress is forever scarred by her deed. You can assume that she never feels good about it, any more than the "good" sorceress. They suffer equal consequences for their choices. But one is reviled and the other celebrated.
I have my own opinion about why this is, but I want to hear others' opinions. I'm trying to determine if this is a question about philosophy or if it's a valid ethical question.
Thoughts?
