|I swear, you two spend as much time arguing over why you say things as actually saying them...
Ever hear the saying "the ends don't justify the means"? The opposite is just as true. Means don't justify the end result.
In general terms, the end justifies the means in cases of outcome based logic, where the time-periods the means cover are, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant in every choice. In cases where longevity is a factor, if you subscribe to a certain line of thinking, the ends can justify the means, since the means are an end in and of themself.
I agree about the means not justifying the end result, though. In outcome-based cases (the form most philosophical questions take, since they involve choice), the means and the end are inseparable for all practical purposes, and not-outcome-based cases (such as longevity ones) tend to be more contextual (making it difficult to form vague logical maxims around them).
While the doll was clearly a cursed thing, formed from negative emotions, its use was clearly already known by its creator. In any other situation, the means here wouldn't justify the end, since the probability of something like that doll causing harm is probably several orders of magnitude higher than... what actually happened. But since the creator knew something of the future it would create (see below for more on that), the means here can be categorized with the outcome; that is, the outcome was known during the means.
For more information, in philosophy the idea of the means somehow being able to justify an end is known as double effect. It's a divisive subject, but the overall consensus is that it's fallacious.
Why do you think you will be an monster if you never grieved?
I think dragon_monster raises a fairly important point about what is monstrous. Different societies will value different traits... etc. It all boils down to what causes a disgust reaction.
If you subscribe for that line of thinking then yeah but I do not I think every person does good for an selfish reason whatever it is even if its to feel good to do good and that is the reason is still an selfish reason its for you.
A good thing is an good thing no matter what. Basically I think altruism does not exist so the reason for doing good does not matter just the act. Acts define an person for others thoughts does not.
If that's the case, then if someone who is utterly remorseless-- who doesn't grieve, and who feels no emotion for doing good or bad things-- is the only type of person capable of true goodness or altruism, since they won't benefit from it at all. But many would argue that such a person is incapable of doing a truly 'good' action, since they wouldn't understand what made the action good. If actions define the person rather than intent, this person doing good would be inseparable from someone who performs good actions simply as a matter of course.
Additionally, the reason people consider sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies to be negative is due to context; according to the diagnoses, they will behave like Rottweilers; if anything disrupts the constraints of behaviour that make behaving in 'good' ways (with a net positive effect) beneficial to them, they will start performing actions with a negative net effect, but a positive personal effect. In that regard, you might consider that they have a higher probability of causing harm in relation to the different circumstances they might be placed in than 'normal' people; so they're quite similar to the doll, which is also probably evil in most sets of circumstances (and was the cause of this point being raised...)
It's situations like this where the principle of double-effect really starts to seem plausible. Intent can be divorced from actions in contexts where the future is unknown, and since most real world contexts hold that constraint, it becomes less useful to categorize people based on their actions than their intent.
However, since the writer of the note clearly had some idea what would happen...
I don't really see how this quest wasn't revealing. It made at least one major hint to the identity of the poster. We already knew that they had a quite deranged writing style. It may have been brought up in the discussions in the earlier DNS for this series, but the writer seems schizophrenic-- that is, they seem unable to distinguish between reality and fiction. In light of this quest, we see this note finally placed in its context, paraphrasing what happens:
"TO MAKE THAT SPECIAL SPECIAL SOMETHING"
"FOR THOSE I KNOW WHO'VE REALLY REALLY GOT IT COMING"
"YOU'RE A PERSON OF JUSTICE, AREN'T YOU?"
"THEN YOU UNDERSTAND"
It rather reminds me of the strategy used by magicians using suggestion, of writing the answers on a napkin beforehand. It seems evident, then, that the writer of the notes finds it difficult to separate not reality from fiction (as in the case of schizophrenia) but rather, the present from the future.
Additionally, these events are all from a single note, from the Bradychwyd quest. There are three other notes yet, and in this case, we can't tell whether they'll occur in the future, occurred at the same time as the Bradychwyd quest, already have occurred, or won't occur at all. In that regard, the writer of the notes may have put us in their own position.
There's another key detail in the note.
FOR THOSE I KNOW
So the author of the notes knows both the policeman and the boy. Potentially, the poster is Sunshine.
In terms of the actual quest, I enjoyed it! I love the obscure focus of these types of stories; it puts emphasis on aspects of life that are important without being world-changing. It's a nice conflation of realism with DF's fantasy setting. The orphan's eloquent speech regarding his afflictions put me in mind of The Elephant Man (or the few scenes of the play that I've seen, anyway).
It's interesting that we don't learn the names of the two characters, either. It adds to the feeling of it being an experience that's passing by.
< Message edited by Shiny_Underpants -- 3/16/2018 12:47:29 >