The guard can't disobey orders, and he doesn't know that it is intended to trap the duchess. I don't think he is very guilty at all.
1. The Duke, for even thinking a woman would do what she was told
2. The Duke, for hiring an idiot guard who raised the drawbridge while the Duchess was out and was too stupid to apply a bit of sense when she came back
3. The Duke, for leaving the drawbridge down while he was away
4. The Duke, for marrying someone so dumb she went out of the house without money (or a cellphone), nor did it occur to her to bribe the guard to lower the drawbridge
5. The Duke, for not making sure the whole village knew anyone who touched his wife would be boiled alive in oil
6. The Duke, for not putting electric eels in his moat thus allowing people to swim in it
The rest are unimportant
2. The Duke, for hiring an idiot guard who raised the drawbridge while the Duchess was out and was too stupid to apply a bit of sense when she came back
3. The Duke, for leaving the drawbridge down while he was away
4. The Duke, for marrying someone so dumb she went out of the house without money (or a cellphone), nor did it occur to her to bribe the guard to lower the drawbridge
5. The Duke, for not making sure the whole village knew anyone who touched his wife would be boiled alive in oil
6. The Duke, for not putting electric eels in his moat thus allowing people to swim in it
The rest are unimportant
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-02-25 02:01:37)
Fuck Israel
Now you've changed the calculus. There was no implication that the Duke had anything against his wife.SenorToenails wrote:
I thought of it this way:
Duke: Hired the guard to kill his wife, even if she had to meet a certain criteria to die.
Guard: Hired by the Duke to kill his wife.
Lover: Was in an affair with a married woman who has much more to lose than himself.
Duchess: Was having an affair.
Friend: Can't be expected to bail out a friend, and didn't know her life was at stake.
Fisherman: Just running a business.
While the Duchess certainly did some stupid stuff, the Duke went overboard in commanding her execution.
Going with the original situation, the duchess owns this completely.
The Duke didn't hire a guard to kill his wife, he hired him to protect his castle.
The guard was doing his job according to the directions of his boss, in line with his duties of protecting the castle.
The lover was getting some high-end tail...can't blame him for anything. He didn't force the duchess to leave nor did he force the Duke to issue the kill on sight orders for intruders.
The friend actually was one of the most innocent. They were trying to teach the duchess a life lesson regarding her poor behavior.
The fisherman had no guilt whatsoever. He treated the duchess just as he would anyone trying to hire his boat...no money and you swim.
Am I the only one who found this amusing:
David.P wrote:
The lover did not force her to come.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
1. The GuardSenorToenails wrote:
I was talking with a friend earlier today, and he brought up this interesting moral dilemma. It shows just how easy it is to place blame on the victim.
Suppose there is this situation:
A Duke leaves his castle for the weekend, and tells his wife to stay within the castle walls. He independently commands the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. The Duchess leaves for a secret rendezvous with her lover outside the castle. When she tries to get back into the castle the next morning, the drawbridge has been lifted and she doesn't have a way to cross the moat. She goes into to town, and tries rent a boat from a fisherman, only to realize she has no money. She then goes to a friend's house, and asks her if she could borrow money to hire the boat. The friend refuses, and tells her that she should live with her mistake. She then goes back to the moat, and tries to swim across. The guard tells her that if she continues, he will have to kill her. She proceeds, and the guard kills her.
Order the six people (Duke, Duchess, The Lover, The Guard, The Fisherman, and The Friend) in order from most to least blame they have for her death, and why.
Pulled the trigger, didn't have to. Just because someone tells you to stick your foot in the fire doesn't mean you go ahead and do it.
2. The Duke
Ordered the condition whereby people could potentially be killed.
3. The Duchess
Probably knew the consequences of her actions and thought it was worth the risk. Some culpability there. She could have walked away and never bothered to come back.
4. The Friend
Not really responsible but could have, as a good friend, prevented it.
5. The Lover
Hey it's not his fault he's got a big cock.
6. The Fisherman
No responsibility to do anything for anybody. A bystander.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-25 08:41:50)
The Guard. He actually pulled the trigger (on the crossbow) just following orders is not an excuse (it didn't work for the Nazi's at Nuremberg)
The Duke. for giving the orders. it was a ridiculous order, what if a troop of scouts arrived selling candy ? just slaughter them !?
The Duchess. Turn back bitch !
friend. i don't see how the friend or the fisherman are guilty. Even if she had the boat that won't have necessarily saved her life !?
fisherman.
lover. he didn't ask her to leave the castle that night and she didn't ask for his help getting back in
The Duke. for giving the orders. it was a ridiculous order, what if a troop of scouts arrived selling candy ? just slaughter them !?
The Duchess. Turn back bitch !
friend. i don't see how the friend or the fisherman are guilty. Even if she had the boat that won't have necessarily saved her life !?
fisherman.
lover. he didn't ask her to leave the castle that night and she didn't ask for his help getting back in
The Duke - For the ridiculous secret order to kill people and the completely terrible order to tell his wife where she can and cannot go. Why the hell should she do what he said? His orders basically say that if his wife disobeys his unreasonable order for any reason, she will be killed. If she decided to go round to her friend's house for some tea she will pay for this with her life. He takes almost all of the blame.
The Guard - Just because someone tells you to do something, doesn't mean you should do it.
The Dutchess - Simple self preservation would surely encourage you to listen to the bloke pointing the crossbow at you?
The rest are fairly trivial.
The Guard - Just because someone tells you to do something, doesn't mean you should do it.
The Dutchess - Simple self preservation would surely encourage you to listen to the bloke pointing the crossbow at you?
The rest are fairly trivial.
Interpretation.FEOS wrote:
Now you've changed the calculus. There was no implication that the Duke had anything against his wife.
Going with the original situation, the duchess owns this completely.
I had initially thought of it that the Duchess was most at fault, but if you think about what can be inferred about the situation, things can be seen differently.
If they tried to cross the moat, yes.buttersIRL wrote:
The Duke. for giving the orders. it was a ridiculous order, what if a troop of scouts arrived selling candy ? just slaughter them !?
DuchessSenorToenails wrote:
I was talking with a friend earlier today, and he brought up this interesting moral dilemma. It shows just how easy it is to place blame on the victim.
Suppose there is this situation:
A Duke leaves his castle for the weekend, and tells his wife to stay within the castle walls. He independently commands the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. The Duchess leaves for a secret rendezvous with her lover outside the castle. When she tries to get back into the castle the next morning, the drawbridge has been lifted and she doesn't have a way to cross the moat. She goes into to town, and tries rent a boat from a fisherman, only to realize she has no money. She then goes to a friend's house, and asks her if she could borrow money to hire the boat. The friend refuses, and tells her that she should live with her mistake. She then goes back to the moat, and tries to swim across. The guard tells her that if she continues, he will have to kill her. She proceeds, and the guard kills her.
Order the six people (Duke, Duchess, The Lover, The Guard, The Fisherman, and The Friend) in order from most to least blame they have for her death, and why.
Lover
Duke
No one else is to blame.
That depends on how good the sex was...David.P wrote:
The lover did not force her to come.
His orders are very specific when put together. His wife isn't allowed to leave, if his anyone tries to enter the castle they are to be killed. His orders are to kill his wife if she leaves and tries to return. You are assuming his orders are to protect the castle, but that is your opinion of what he might have been thinking, not based on the actual information given.FEOS wrote:
Now you've changed the calculus. There was no implication that the Duke had anything against his wife.SenorToenails wrote:
I thought of it this way:
Duke: Hired the guard to kill his wife, even if she had to meet a certain criteria to die.
Guard: Hired by the Duke to kill his wife.
Lover: Was in an affair with a married woman who has much more to lose than himself.
Duchess: Was having an affair.
Friend: Can't be expected to bail out a friend, and didn't know her life was at stake.
Fisherman: Just running a business.
While the Duchess certainly did some stupid stuff, the Duke went overboard in commanding her execution.
Going with the original situation, the duchess owns this completely.
The Duke didn't hire a guard to kill his wife, he hired him to protect his castle.
The guard was doing his job according to the directions of his boss, in line with his duties of protecting the castle.
The lover was getting some high-end tail...can't blame him for anything. He didn't force the duchess to leave nor did he force the Duke to issue the kill on sight orders for intruders.
The friend actually was one of the most innocent. They were trying to teach the duchess a life lesson regarding her poor behavior.
The fisherman had no guilt whatsoever. He treated the duchess just as he would anyone trying to hire his boat...no money and you swim.
Am I the only one who found this amusing:David.P wrote:
The lover did not force her to come.
The closest real world version of this is the Duke is enacting essentially a part of shiara law, he's imposing a death penalty on his wife for disobeying his orders. In some ways it's even worse as he isn't even informing his wife of the penalty being imposed for breaking his obviously outrageous orders to her. At least in countries with Shiara law women are aware of the repercussions of disobeying.
Sorry, my friend. That's a bit of a stretch. He told his wife not to leave. It's reasonable for him to assume she would not leave, therefore she would be in no danger of getting killed getting back in, as she would never have left. It's not at all apparent that his intent was to punish his wife in any way, but it does seem fairly clear that he felt he needed to take rather draconian measures to protect the castle...hence the order to kill.PureFodder wrote:
His orders are very specific when put together. His wife isn't allowed to leave, if his anyone tries to enter the castle they are to be killed. His orders are to kill his wife if she leaves and tries to return. You are assuming his orders are to protect the castle, but that is your opinion of what he might have been thinking, not based on the actual information given.
The closest real world version of this is the Duke is enacting essentially a part of shiara law, he's imposing a death penalty on his wife for disobeying his orders. In some ways it's even worse as he isn't even informing his wife of the penalty being imposed for breaking his obviously outrageous orders to her. At least in countries with Shiara law women are aware of the repercussions of disobeying.
If he thinks it's dangerous enough out there to have to kill anyone who attempts to enter the castle, why would he tell his wife not to leave if he wanted her dead? Just tell her to go on a ride in the evil, dark forest where she would be accosted by brigands and whatnot. Shifts any blame from him to the baddies he's trying to protect his castle from to begin with.
Based on your response, it appears you developed an opinion of what he was thinking, rather than going off the information that was given.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I agree with Havok...
-konfusion
-konfusion
Duchess is most guilty, being a duchess you'd have no reason that forces you to leave the castle as you could ask for anything you wanted.
Lover, knew the duchess was cheating on her husband and encouraged her to do so.
I dont think the rest have any blame.
Duke asked his wife not to leave the castle, while also not letting anyone in, can be seen as protecting his wife
Guard was jus following orders, like the soldiers in Iraq who are forced to shoot if an iraqi car refuses to stop at a checkpoint after a warning
Friend wouldnt know there was a death sentence upon those trying to enter the castle
Fisherman is jus runnin a business
Lover, knew the duchess was cheating on her husband and encouraged her to do so.
I dont think the rest have any blame.
Duke asked his wife not to leave the castle, while also not letting anyone in, can be seen as protecting his wife
Guard was jus following orders, like the soldiers in Iraq who are forced to shoot if an iraqi car refuses to stop at a checkpoint after a warning
Friend wouldnt know there was a death sentence upon those trying to enter the castle
Fisherman is jus runnin a business
So If your wife said she was going away for the weekend and told you that you weren't allowed to leave the house would you do it? That's not reasonable in any even remote stretch of the imagination. From the information we have, she also wasn't aware of the punishment of the lofty crime of disobeying her husbands crazy orders.FEOS wrote:
Sorry, my friend. That's a bit of a stretch. He told his wife not to leave. It's reasonable for him to assume she would not leave, therefore she would be in no danger of getting killed getting back in, as she would never have left. It's not at all apparent that his intent was to punish his wife in any way, but it does seem fairly clear that he felt he needed to take rather draconian measures to protect the castle...hence the order to kill.PureFodder wrote:
His orders are very specific when put together. His wife isn't allowed to leave, if his anyone tries to enter the castle they are to be killed. His orders are to kill his wife if she leaves and tries to return. You are assuming his orders are to protect the castle, but that is your opinion of what he might have been thinking, not based on the actual information given.
The closest real world version of this is the Duke is enacting essentially a part of shiara law, he's imposing a death penalty on his wife for disobeying his orders. In some ways it's even worse as he isn't even informing his wife of the penalty being imposed for breaking his obviously outrageous orders to her. At least in countries with Shiara law women are aware of the repercussions of disobeying.
If he thinks it's dangerous enough out there to have to kill anyone who attempts to enter the castle, why would he tell his wife not to leave if he wanted her dead? Just tell her to go on a ride in the evil, dark forest where she would be accosted by brigands and whatnot. Shifts any blame from him to the baddies he's trying to protect his castle from to begin with.
Based on your response, it appears you developed an opinion of what he was thinking, rather than going off the information that was given.
The whole protection of the castle argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. There is no evidence that that was his intention.
His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys his crazy, unreasonable orders. If his intention was to kill his wife which we also have no evidence for, then it's a master plan because he's completely convinced you of his innocence, despite the fact that her death is the logical conclusion of the orders he gave if his wife disobeyed.
I don't live in the timeframe. Therefore, I didn't apply CURRENT mores against the scenario, but rather acceptable behaviors for the time. In that case, telling your wife (particularly if you are a Duke) not to leave and expecting her to do follow that direction is entirely consistent.PureFodder wrote:
So If your wife said she was going away for the weekend and told you that you weren't allowed to leave the house would you do it? That's not reasonable in any even remote stretch of the imagination. From the information we have, she also wasn't aware of the punishment of the lofty crime of disobeying her husbands crazy orders.FEOS wrote:
Sorry, my friend. That's a bit of a stretch. He told his wife not to leave. It's reasonable for him to assume she would not leave, therefore she would be in no danger of getting killed getting back in, as she would never have left. It's not at all apparent that his intent was to punish his wife in any way, but it does seem fairly clear that he felt he needed to take rather draconian measures to protect the castle...hence the order to kill.
If he thinks it's dangerous enough out there to have to kill anyone who attempts to enter the castle, why would he tell his wife not to leave if he wanted her dead? Just tell her to go on a ride in the evil, dark forest where she would be accosted by brigands and whatnot. Shifts any blame from him to the baddies he's trying to protect his castle from to begin with.
Based on your response, it appears you developed an opinion of what he was thinking, rather than going off the information that was given.
Just as the whole killing his wife argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. Only your conclusion was reached based on using current social behaviors in your thought process.PureFodder wrote:
The whole protection of the castle argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. There is no evidence that that was his intention.
PureFodder wrote:
His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys his crazy, unreasonable orders. If his intention was to kill his wife which we also have no evidence for, then it's a master plan because he's completely convinced you of his innocence, despite the fact that her death is the logical conclusion of the orders he gave if his wife disobeyed.
No, his orders were for the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. His orders are neither crazy nor unreasonable for the timeframe. In fact, his wife's behavior was crazy and unreasonable for the timeframe. It is just as plausible that he told his wife not to leave the castle in order to protect her from his order to his guards...which he didn't feel he needed to share with her because he is the Duke and she is just a woman (again, using behaviors that are consistent with the time period being discussed, not today's).The OP wrote:
He independently commands the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The Duke, then the Duchess.
Duke - Why the fuck can't she leave the castle, and then why kill anyone that tries to enter. Wtf, this ain't the middle ages, you arrest them under the anti-terrorism act and hold them for 28 days.
Duchess - Fucking Ho deserved to die
Duke - Why the fuck can't she leave the castle, and then why kill anyone that tries to enter. Wtf, this ain't the middle ages, you arrest them under the anti-terrorism act and hold them for 28 days.
Duchess - Fucking Ho deserved to die
You don't, by any chance, happen to be the Duke in this story of yours?SenorToenails wrote:
I was talking with a friend earlier today, and he brought up this interesting moral dilemma. It shows just how easy it is to place blame on the victim.
Suppose there is this situation:
A Duke leaves his castle for the weekend, and tells his wife to stay within the castle walls. He independently commands the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. The Duchess leaves for a secret rendezvous with her lover outside the castle. When she tries to get back into the castle the next morning, the drawbridge has been lifted and she doesn't have a way to cross the moat. She goes into to town, and tries rent a boat from a fisherman, only to realize she has no money. She then goes to a friend's house, and asks her if she could borrow money to hire the boat. The friend refuses, and tells her that she should live with her mistake. She then goes back to the moat, and tries to swim across. The guard tells her that if she continues, he will have to kill her. She proceeds, and the guard kills her.
Order the six people (Duke, Duchess, The Lover, The Guard, The Fisherman, and The Friend) in order from most to least blame they have for her death, and why.
And the fact the dutchess would most likely be able to get anything she needed from the castle servants, so she wouldn't need to leaveFEOS wrote:
I don't live in the timeframe. Therefore, I didn't apply CURRENT mores against the scenario, but rather acceptable behaviors for the time. In that case, telling your wife (particularly if you are a Duke) not to leave and expecting her to do follow that direction is entirely consistent.PureFodder wrote:
So If your wife said she was going away for the weekend and told you that you weren't allowed to leave the house would you do it? That's not reasonable in any even remote stretch of the imagination. From the information we have, she also wasn't aware of the punishment of the lofty crime of disobeying her husbands crazy orders.FEOS wrote:
Sorry, my friend. That's a bit of a stretch. He told his wife not to leave. It's reasonable for him to assume she would not leave, therefore she would be in no danger of getting killed getting back in, as she would never have left. It's not at all apparent that his intent was to punish his wife in any way, but it does seem fairly clear that he felt he needed to take rather draconian measures to protect the castle...hence the order to kill.
If he thinks it's dangerous enough out there to have to kill anyone who attempts to enter the castle, why would he tell his wife not to leave if he wanted her dead? Just tell her to go on a ride in the evil, dark forest where she would be accosted by brigands and whatnot. Shifts any blame from him to the baddies he's trying to protect his castle from to begin with.
Based on your response, it appears you developed an opinion of what he was thinking, rather than going off the information that was given.Just as the whole killing his wife argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. Only your conclusion was reached based on using current social behaviors in your thought process.PureFodder wrote:
The whole protection of the castle argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. There is no evidence that that was his intention.PureFodder wrote:
His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys his crazy, unreasonable orders. If his intention was to kill his wife which we also have no evidence for, then it's a master plan because he's completely convinced you of his innocence, despite the fact that her death is the logical conclusion of the orders he gave if his wife disobeyed.No, his orders were for the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. His orders are neither crazy nor unreasonable for the timeframe. In fact, his wife's behavior was crazy and unreasonable for the timeframe. It is just as plausible that he told his wife not to leave the castle in order to protect her from his order to his guards...which he didn't feel he needed to share with her because he is the Duke and she is just a woman (again, using behaviors that are consistent with the time period being discussed, not today's).The OP wrote:
He independently commands the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away.
Actually, in the scenario, it is.Mek-Izzle wrote:
The Duke, then the Duchess.
Duke - Why the fuck can't she leave the castle, and then why kill anyone that tries to enter. Wtf, this ain't the middle ages, you arrest them under the anti-terrorism act and hold them for 28 days.
Duchess - Fucking Ho deserved to die
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Quite right, my dear WatsonFEOS wrote:
Actually, in the scenario, it is.Mek-Izzle wrote:
The Duke, then the Duchess.
Duke - Why the fuck can't she leave the castle, and then why kill anyone that tries to enter. Wtf, this ain't the middle ages, you arrest them under the anti-terrorism act and hold them for 28 days.
Duchess - Fucking Ho deserved to die
Again, more assumptions. The first one is that this isn't set in the modern day. Castles, guards, fishermen, Dukes etc. all exist in the modern day. All arguments about timeframes are irrelavent as we don't know the timeframe.bennisboy wrote:
And the fact the dutchess would most likely be able to get anything she needed from the castle servants, so she wouldn't need to leaveFEOS wrote:
I don't live in the timeframe. Therefore, I didn't apply CURRENT mores against the scenario, but rather acceptable behaviors for the time. In that case, telling your wife (particularly if you are a Duke) not to leave and expecting her to do follow that direction is entirely consistent.PureFodder wrote:
So If your wife said she was going away for the weekend and told you that you weren't allowed to leave the house would you do it? That's not reasonable in any even remote stretch of the imagination. From the information we have, she also wasn't aware of the punishment of the lofty crime of disobeying her husbands crazy orders.Just as the whole killing his wife argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. Only your conclusion was reached based on using current social behaviors in your thought process.PureFodder wrote:
The whole protection of the castle argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. There is no evidence that that was his intention.PureFodder wrote:
His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys his crazy, unreasonable orders. If his intention was to kill his wife which we also have no evidence for, then it's a master plan because he's completely convinced you of his innocence, despite the fact that her death is the logical conclusion of the orders he gave if his wife disobeyed.No, his orders were for the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. His orders are neither crazy nor unreasonable for the timeframe. In fact, his wife's behavior was crazy and unreasonable for the timeframe. It is just as plausible that he told his wife not to leave the castle in order to protect her from his order to his guards...which he didn't feel he needed to share with her because he is the Duke and she is just a woman (again, using behaviors that are consistent with the time period being discussed, not today's).The OP wrote:
He independently commands the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away.
I specifically said that we don't know the Dukes intentions, but that his orders when put together mean that his wife will be killed if she disobeys orders. This is the logical conclusion of the Dukes orders. If I instructed someone to go into a room, then independently instructed someone else to throw hand grenades into the room you wouldn't absolve me of all blame? His intention is unknown, but the blame is certainly on the Duke for issuing commands that, when logically followed, resulted in the death of his wife.
If protecting the castle and his wife was his intention, he obviously could have instructed the guards to protect his wife and his castle. We don't know his intentions, maybe you are right, the point is we simply don't know, all we can know is the logical conclusions of his specific orders, which are to kill his wife if she exits the castle and returns while he is away.
As far as her having everything she could want within the castle, there's no mention of any servant or the financial situation of the castle residents. Maybe the castle happens to be completely out of food and water or they are actually poor. We simply don't know anything about this so arguments along these lines are illogical.
Last edited by PureFodder (2008-02-26 04:59:10)
1. His "plan" was not to kill his wife, with the information presented you could not have come to that conclusion without coming up with assumptions of your own. Read it carefully. He told his wife not to leave while he was gone. He's the Duke, she does what he says or a beheading for her.PureFodder wrote:
So If your wife said she was going away for the weekend and told you that you weren't allowed to leave the house would you do it? That's not reasonable in any even remote stretch of the imagination. From the information we have, she also wasn't aware of the punishment of the lofty crime of disobeying her husbands crazy orders.FEOS wrote:
Sorry, my friend. That's a bit of a stretch. He told his wife not to leave. It's reasonable for him to assume she would not leave, therefore she would be in no danger of getting killed getting back in, as she would never have left. It's not at all apparent that his intent was to punish his wife in any way, but it does seem fairly clear that he felt he needed to take rather draconian measures to protect the castle...hence the order to kill.PureFodder wrote:
His orders are very specific when put together. His wife isn't allowed to leave, if his anyone tries to enter the castle they are to be killed. His orders are to kill his wife if she leaves and tries to return. You are assuming his orders are to protect the castle, but that is your opinion of what he might have been thinking, not based on the actual information given.
The closest real world version of this is the Duke is enacting essentially a part of shiara law, he's imposing a death penalty on his wife for disobeying his orders. In some ways it's even worse as he isn't even informing his wife of the penalty being imposed for breaking his obviously outrageous orders to her. At least in countries with Shiara law women are aware of the repercussions of disobeying.
If he thinks it's dangerous enough out there to have to kill anyone who attempts to enter the castle, why would he tell his wife not to leave if he wanted her dead? Just tell her to go on a ride in the evil, dark forest where she would be accosted by brigands and whatnot. Shifts any blame from him to the baddies he's trying to protect his castle from to begin with.
Based on your response, it appears you developed an opinion of what he was thinking, rather than going off the information that was given.
The whole protection of the castle argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. There is no evidence that that was his intention.
His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys his crazy, unreasonable orders. If his intention was to kill his wife which we also have no evidence for, then it's a master plan because he's completely convinced you of his innocence, despite the fact that her death is the logical conclusion of the orders he gave if his wife disobeyed.
2. He told his guard to kill anyone attempting to get into the castle while he was away. Again not his fault the Duchess was killed. If she did what the Duke told her (which was perfectly reasonable for the the Duke) She would not be dead. You can't say that "just because he was told to do it doesn't mean he should have." Tough cookies. Duke finds out he disobeyed the Dukes direct orders and he loses his head. He worked for the Duke, not the Duchess.
I don't see anywhere in the OP to suggest that he planned his wife's death. The series of events That SHOULD have been prevented led to the death of the Duchess. Duchess did this to herself, whether she knew of the Dukes orders to kill or not is irrelevant, she was told to stay put.
Edit: Shpeeeeling
Last edited by Adams_BJ (2008-02-26 05:13:19)
Fodder...you are reading WAY too much into this.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Except tha major difference is you said if you instructed someone to g ointo a room and told someone else to frag it. He didnt tell his wife to leave the castle, he told his wife not to leave the catsle, if she had listened to him, she wouldn't have been hurt.PureFodder wrote:
Again, more assumptions. The first one is that this isn't set in the modern day. Castles, guards, fishermen, Dukes etc. all exist in the modern day. All arguments about timeframes are irrelavent as we don't know the timeframe.bennisboy wrote:
And the fact the dutchess would most likely be able to get anything she needed from the castle servants, so she wouldn't need to leaveFEOS wrote:
I don't live in the timeframe. Therefore, I didn't apply CURRENT mores against the scenario, but rather acceptable behaviors for the time. In that case, telling your wife (particularly if you are a Duke) not to leave and expecting her to do follow that direction is entirely consistent.PureFodder wrote:
So If your wife said she was going away for the weekend and told you that you weren't allowed to leave the house would you do it? That's not reasonable in any even remote stretch of the imagination. From the information we have, she also wasn't aware of the punishment of the lofty crime of disobeying her husbands crazy orders.Just as the whole killing his wife argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. Only your conclusion was reached based on using current social behaviors in your thought process.PureFodder wrote:
The whole protection of the castle argument IS ENTIRELY IN YOUR MIND. There is no evidence that that was his intention.No, his orders were for the guards to kill anyone who tries to enter the castle while he is away. His orders are neither crazy nor unreasonable for the timeframe. In fact, his wife's behavior was crazy and unreasonable for the timeframe. It is just as plausible that he told his wife not to leave the castle in order to protect her from his order to his guards...which he didn't feel he needed to share with her because he is the Duke and she is just a woman (again, using behaviors that are consistent with the time period being discussed, not today's).PureFodder wrote:
His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys his crazy, unreasonable orders. If his intention was to kill his wife which we also have no evidence for, then it's a master plan because he's completely convinced you of his innocence, despite the fact that her death is the logical conclusion of the orders he gave if his wife disobeyed.
I specifically said that we don't know the Dukes intentions, but that his orders when put together mean that his wife will be killed if she disobeys orders. This is the logical conclusion of the Dukes orders. If I instructed someone to go into a room, then independently instructed someone else to throw hand grenades into the room you wouldn't absolve me of all blame? His intention is unknown, but the blame is certainly on the Duke for issuing commands that, when logically followed, resulted in the death of his wife.
If protecting the castle and his wife was his intention, he obviously could have instructed the guards to protect his wife and his castle. We don't know his intentions, maybe you are right, the point is we simply don't know, all we can know is the logical conclusions of his specific orders, which are to kill his wife if she exits the castle and returns while he is away.
As far as her having everything she could want within the castle, there's no mention of any servant or the financial situation of the castle residents. Maybe the castle happens to be completely out of food and water or they are actually poor. We simply don't know anything about this so arguments along these lines are illogical.
The logical conclusion would not be that he was tryin to kill his wife, but he was trying to protect her, he asked her not to leave and allowed noone in the castle.
As for the point about it could be modern day, dukes these days dont generally have moats round their castle, or allowed to give orders to kill people. Plus if it was modern day, that would make the duchess even more able to get whatever she needed from inside the castle