BF2S Forums Moral Dilemma - How do you place blame?

Adams_BJ wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys

Adams_BJ wrote:

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.

Proove that he didn't work for both the Duke and hs wife equally. Proove that the guard would have been killed for disobeying orders. Explain why someone's wife should do what her husband says and pay a death penalty for failing to do so.

Adams_BJ wrote:

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

We don't know if the Duke was planning to kill his wife or if he was planning to protect her wife, we don't know. We can't assume either way. What we do know is that his orders meant that his wife would be killed if she disobeyed orders. If this is accidental stupidity on the Dukes behalf or a pre-planned punishment is something we simply don't know.

Adams_BJ wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys

No, they were to kill anyone trying to get in, Duchess or not.

PureFodder wrote:

We don't know if the Duke was planning to kill his wife or if he was planning to protect her wife, we don't know. We can't assume either way. What we do know is that his orders meant that his wife would be killed if she disobeyed orders. If this is accidental stupidity on the Dukes behalf or a pre-planned punishment is something we simply don't know.

He told his wife to stay while he was gone. It's not unreasonable, he is the Duke, he is in a position of authority, there would be reason behind his decision, and even if there wasn't he's the Duke. If the Queen of England told Prince Harry to stay within the castle walls while she was absent he would do it, simply because the QUEEN said to do it. Same as in this scenario. The DUKE said to stay within the castle walls. Justified or not the DUKE said to stay. The Duke (being the Duke) should have no reason to doubt the Duchess' compliance in the matter, leading to imply that his intentions were not to kill the Duchess, but her knowingly disobeying orders of the Duke led to her death.

Edit - oops forgot this one

PureFodder wrote:

Proove that he didn't work for both the Duke and hs wife equally. Proove that the guard would have been killed for disobeying orders. Explain why someone's wife should do what her husband says and pay a death penalty for failing to do so.

Hmm,  I cannot prove from the example given that the guard did or didn't work for them both equally, but the fact that the Duke is telling the Duchess what to do implies that he is higher in the Chain. I can't prove the guard would have been killed for disobeying orders, touche. However, I would assume that to be one of the Dukes guards it is your responsibility to carry out the orders of the Duke whether you think they are morally justified or not. If it was medieval - beheading, Present time - Discharge (dishonourable/honourable no idea]

On the last point, I am not saying that someone's wife should do what the husband says, however in this case the husband is the Duke, you pretty much HAVE to do what he says. Furthermore she did not receive the death penalty. That would require a charge and conviction. She was killed by a guard following orders.

More assumptions, Dukes command any authority, Dutchesses are less important than Dukes. If someone introduced themselves as a Duke and asked you to kill someone would you do it. Would you do anything he said simply because he was a Duke?

bennisboy wrote:

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.

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

The logical conclusion is that disobeying his order not to leave the castle carried a death penalty for his wife. Nothing tells you anything about his intentions.

I heard this one before(don't remember where). Cept in the version I heard it was just some bridge troll or mugger that killed her, which in turn made it a lot easier to figure out.

Well, the girl crossed the bridge knowing the mugger or w/e would kill her, and she took her chances anyways. Pretty much the same situation of knowing you will be killed but crossing anyways.

Although the difference between following orders and doing it because you're an ass does make a noticable difference.

PureFodder wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

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.

His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys

You tell your kids to not run across roads, are your orders in order for your kids to be killed if they disobey you or are they to protect them?

PureFodder wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

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

We don't know if the Duke was planning to kill his wife or if he was planning to protect her wife, we don't know. We can't assume either way. What we do know is that his orders meant that his wife would be killed if she disobeyed orders. If this is accidental stupidity on the Dukes behalf or a pre-planned punishment is something we simply don't know.

You tell someone not to walk over some land mines, if they disobey they are going to be killed, therefore its your sick little pre-planned punishment for those that disobey you... theres no way you could be trying to 'protect' them.

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.

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.

Interpretation. 

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.

No you're just making shit up. There is no way you can infer what the duke is thinking. I could also say that he wanted the guard to kill the 'lover' as he tried to gain access to the castle, but again that would just be making shit up.

Friend: no blame possible. Not the nicest thing to do not lending the money, but would that change the outcome? No!
If the Duchess is returning via the bridge, boat or swimming she is still returning and would be killed, the method in which she gets there is irrelevant.

Fisherman: Also no blame. Again given access to a boat would not have stop the Duchess from getting killed. But unlike the friend it's not even a 'mean' thing to do to refuse service. He is running a business and if someone can not afford to pay for the service then he has no obligation to give such service.

Lover: Morally questionable endeavor to take another mans wife, but it shouldn't be his responsibility or duty to make sure the Duchess stays faithful. Its up to the duchess and only the duchess as to who she sleeps with. Again no blame at all for the duchess death.

Duke: Gave a stupidly unspecific order to the guard and failed to point out the dangers to his wife if she disobeyed his instructions to her. But none the less, if the duchess had followed his instruction then no harm would have come to her.

Guard: Following a stupid unspecific order too literally. But then again if you're in the army you follow orders without question or the entire system breaks down.

Duchess: Disobeys her husbands instructions, cheats on her husband and then tries to break back into the castle before the Duke gets back even after being warned by the guard to not continue as well. She got herself into a shitty situation by a number of deceitful actions and ignoring multiple instructions and warnings. She was the architect of her own demise and apart from some minor infractions by the Duke and Guard needs to take full responsibility for her actions. And did so.

The guard can't not follow orders. I don't see how any blame should be assigned to him.

DrunkFace wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

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.

His orders weren't to kill his wife, they were for his wife to be killed IF she disobeys

You tell your kids to not run across roads, are your orders in order for your kids to be killed if they disobey you or are they to protect them?

PureFodder wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

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

We don't know if the Duke was planning to kill his wife or if he was planning to protect her wife, we don't know. We can't assume either way. What we do know is that his orders meant that his wife would be killed if she disobeyed orders. If this is accidental stupidity on the Dukes behalf or a pre-planned punishment is something we simply don't know.

You tell someone not to walk over some land mines, if they disobey they are going to be killed, therefore its your sick little pre-planned punishment for those that disobey you... theres no way you could be trying to 'protect' them.

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.

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.

Interpretation. 

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.

No you're just making shit up. There is no way you can infer what the duke is thinking. I could also say that he wanted the guard to kill the 'lover' as he tried to gain access to the castle, but again that would just be making shit up.

Friend: no blame possible. Not the nicest thing to do not lending the money, but would that change the outcome? No!
If the Duchess is returning via the bridge, boat or swimming she is still returning and would be killed, the method in which she gets there is irrelevant.

Fisherman: Also no blame. Again given access to a boat would not have stop the Duchess from getting killed. But unlike the friend it's not even a 'mean' thing to do to refuse service. He is running a business and if someone can not afford to pay for the service then he has no obligation to give such service.

Lover: Morally questionable endeavor to take another mans wife, but it shouldn't be his responsibility or duty to make sure the Duchess stays faithful. Its up to the duchess and only the duchess as to who she sleeps with. Again no blame at all for the duchess death.

Duke: Gave a stupidly unspecific order to the guard and failed to point out the dangers to his wife if she disobeyed his instructions to her. But none the less, if the duchess had followed his instruction then no harm would have come to her.

Guard: Following a stupid unspecific order too literally. But then again if you're in the army you follow orders without question or the entire system breaks down.

Duchess: Disobeys her husbands instructions, cheats on her husband and then tries to break back into the castle before the Duke gets back even after being warned by the guard to not continue as well. She got herself into a shitty situation by a number of deceitful actions and ignoring multiple instructions and warnings. She was the architect of her own demise and apart from some minor infractions by the Duke and Guard needs to take full responsibility for her actions. And did so.

I'd tell my kids not to run across the road, but if they didn't follow my orders I wouldn't order somone to kill them.

PureFodder wrote:

It's a moral dilemma not a legal dilemma.

Take a case of a 17th century slave owner that starts killing a slave family with a crossbow, after killing 2 of the slave family, the dad sticks a knife through the slave owners chest killing him. Legally the slave owner is right, he owns the slaves and can kill them at will. Morally, pretty well everyone will be on the side of the slave.

And my argument still holds. It's only a moral dilemma for us TODAY if we view it through TODAY's moral standards.

The timeframe of the situation is key to determining whether there is a dilemma (moral, legal, or otherwise) or not.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

It's a moral dilemma not a legal dilemma.

Take a case of a 17th century slave owner that starts killing a slave family with a crossbow, after killing 2 of the slave family, the dad sticks a knife through the slave owners chest killing him. Legally the slave owner is right, he owns the slaves and can kill them at will. Morally, pretty well everyone will be on the side of the slave.

And my argument still holds. It's only a moral dilemma for us TODAY if we view it through TODAY's moral standards.

The timeframe of the situation is key to determining whether there is a dilemma (moral, legal, or otherwise) or not.

No it isn't, there's no problem with saying the actions of people in the past were morally reprehensable even if they were common practice. In my example, was the slave owner the moral one and the slave that killed him immoral? Things don't cease to be moral if a large amount of the populace do it and the laws of the land permit it. The legallity changes over time, the morality doesn't.

So I guess you judge other cultures' practices based on your culture's moral framework? What you are doing here is basically the same thing.

And what is moral and what isn't does actually change over time, along with society. People living together used to be utterly immoral. Now it is commonplace and (generally) not considered immoral at all.