Fallout 3, Moral Dilemma and the NAP

[Havet]

http://cdawgownd.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/the-pitt.jpg

So i was playing one of fallout 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3)'s add-ons, the pitt, when I was confronted with this moral dilemma:

Basically The Pitt is an industrial sector in decay due to the atomic war, but more importantly, due to the slavery happening there.

Basically there's two kind of people there: raiders and slavers.

The moral dilemma happens when, participating in a quest for the slave's freedom, the player is asked to go to the "king" and retrieve a cure for a disease that is turning slaves into Trogs, which are mutated beasts who attack everything on sight. By getting the cure, the slaves can then become immune, and while they riot, the defense systems of the raiders that kept the trogs at bay will be sabotaged, allowing the trogs to feed of the raiders while the slaves remain safe.

The cure so happens to be the "king's" daughter.

So the dilemma is: Is it morally wrong to kidnapp a baby in order to achieve freedom of the slaves?

I can predict most communists would apply the utilitarian argument that since kidnapping the baby achieves greater utility for everyone else by freeding them from their slavery, then it should be done.

But I am interested in defending this from the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) point of view.

The NAP holds that "aggression", which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism), the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense.

Now, at first glance, it would seem that the NAP prevents the player from kidnapping the baby, since it would be aggressing against it. However, we must not forget that there is already another type of aggression going on: the slaves are enslaved into working in the mill by force.

Since the NAP has no moral objection against defense, it is not immoral for the workers to aggress the aggressors if that aggression allows them to achieve freedom. In this particular case, the only way for them to achieve their freedom is to kidnapp the baby. Therefore, their action is justified as legitimate self-defense from previous aggression.

Of course, the NAP is not an objectively good principle, especially considering "life-boat" "what-if" scenarios, but generally it proves to be a good rule of thumb.

Any thoughts?

[danyboy27]

go kidnap her.

[Invader Zim]

When playing the game my solution is ignore all dilemmas and go in guns blazing.

[Havet]

When playing the game my solution is ignore the dilemma and go in guns blazing.

Lol, even the slaves?

[Invader Zim]

Lol, even the slaves?

It depends on the character you are playing, if you are a goody with a conscience then I conceed that probably isn't going to do your kama any good and I would suggest avoid shooting the slaves. If not, lock and load.

[Havet]

It depends on the character you are playing, if you are a goody with a conscience then I conceed that probably isn't going to do your kama any good and I would suggest avoid shooting the slaves. If not, lock and load.

Ok so, what would you do IF this were a real situation? Would you still go "lock and load"?

The question was not what would one do in the game, but rather what would one do if this happened in real life.

[Skooma Addict]

Now, at first glance, it would seem that the NAP prevents the player from kidnapping the baby, since it would be aggressing against it. However, we must not forget that there is already another type of aggression going on: the slaves are enslaved into working in the mill by force.

Since the NAP has no moral objection against defense, it is not immoral for the workers to aggress the aggressors if that aggression allows them to achieve freedom. In this particular case, the only way for them to achieve their freedom is to kidnapp the baby. Therefore, their action is justified as legitimate self-defense from previous aggression

If your trying to abide by the NAP, you cannot kidnap the baby. The slaves cannot kidnap the baby either.



Ok so, what would you do IF this were a real situation? Would you still go "lock and load"?

The question was not what would one do in the game, but rather what would one do if this happened in real life.

For me, it would depend on how dangerous kidnapping the baby would be. If I was 99% sure I would get caught and die, then I wouldn't act. The goal would be to kidnap the baby, free the slaves, and then return the baby afterwords (if that is possible).

[Havet]

If your trying to abide by the NAP, you cannot kidnap the baby. The slaves cannot kidnap the baby either.

Well, yes you can. The player is also a slave (he had to dress like a slave in order to be allowed in), and since the slaves are being agressed at, they have the "right" to defend themselves. Since the only way to achieve their freedom is the one I mentioned, then they have to kidnap the baby


For me, it would depend on how dangerous kidnapping the baby would be. If I was 99% sure I would get caught and die, then I wouldn't act. The goal would be to kidnap the baby, free the slaves, and then return the baby afterwords (if that is possible).

Well, I did it fairly easy, because I had a Stealth suit which basically made me invisible. But otherwise, you just have to shoot your way out of there by killing like 10 raiders, including the mother of the child.

Anyway, if the player does choose to kidnap the baby, he obviously can't return it afterwards (otherwise you'd get a shot in the face by the father!), so the solution is that one of the slaves, Midea, takes care of the baby (there's even a side quest to find teddy bears for the little kid).

[khad]

I shot the mother in the back of the head and took the baby, in that order.

All power to the slave proletariat.

[Robert]

She is innocent of the slaves' dilemma, right? It's a little vague as to what happens after the kidnapping. Does she get killed or harmed in the curing process? At a minimum she'll be undeservedly traumatised.

And how do you know another cure won't present itself?

Leave the kid alone and look for another cure or let the slaves revolt.

[Havet]

She is innocent of the slaves' dilemma, right? It's a little vague as to what happens after the kidnapping. Does she get killed or harmed in the curing process? At a minimum she'll be undeservedly traumatised.

And how do you know another cure won't present itself?

Actually the parents of the child are themselves looking for a cure, but they are taking it waaaaaaay to slow, in order to "not harm the child", meanwhile people die of cancer and get turned into trogs.


Leave the kid alone and look for another cure or let the slaves revolt.

Well that's the thing. There ain't no other cure, and there ain't no other way for the slaves to revolt unless they have something they can ransom for. I mean, they could try and riot, but they'll just end end.

[Havet]

I shot the mother in the back of the head and took the baby, in that order.

All power to the slave proletariat.

Why shoot the mother?

In my case, I just took the baby and activated my Stealth suit, or a Stealth boy, in order to become invisible. You don't need to kill her. It's immoral ^^

[Robert]

You already decided to take the baby? I guess you lost interest in the NAP then?

Are you feeding it and changing its diaper?

[khad]

Why shoot the mother?
The tree of liberty needed watering.

[danyboy27]

The tree of liberty needed watering.

yes fuck humanist values.

[Jazzratt]

Why shoot the mother?

In my case, I just took the baby and activated my Stealth suit, or a Stealth boy, in order to become invisible. You don't need to kill her. It's immoral ^^

You're playing a fucking computer game the morality of practically anything you do will be questionable to say the least.

I must confess I know little of the NAP but using a definition of self defense that broad seems to me to mean that quite a lot of things can be justified by it. Especially if one accepts other lolbertarian conceits such as taxation as slavery and all that other crap they prattle on about.

[bcbm]

its kind of silly to talk about a moral situation from a video game and the morality of the various choices, why you made them, etc when you're limited to two choices, neither of which are very good or realistic.

[Havet]

You already decided to take the baby? I guess you lost interest in the NAP then?

Are you feeding it and changing its diaper?

I already explained how it doesn't violate the NAP. Read above.

[Havet]

its kind of silly to talk about a moral situation from a video game and the morality of the various choices, why you made them, etc when you're limited to two choices, neither of which are very good or realistic.

Well they certainly sound realistic. They sound very much like feudal time slavery options. Sure, they aren't good options. But not all the time we have good options.

[Havet]

The tree of liberty needed watering.

How are you watering liberty by removing someone else's liberty who did nothing wrong? The mother did nothing wrong. It was the father, the "king", who enslaved everyone else.

[khad]

How are you watering liberty by removing someone else's liberty who did nothing wrong? The mother did nothing wrong. It was the father, the "king", who enslaved everyone else.
Save your sympathy for slavers for forums that actually give a shit.

[Robert]

Since the NAP has no moral objection against defense, it is not immoral for the workers to aggress the aggressors if that aggression allows them to achieve freedom. In this particular case, the only way for them to achieve their freedom is to kidnapp the baby. Therefore, their action is justified as legitimate self-defense from previous aggression.

Incoherent. And the baby isn't the aggressor.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Slaves, or kidnap baby? hmmmm

Removing one persons liberty for the sake of hundreds of others seems reasonable to me.

It's the same as "Would you killthe child of someone you knew, if you knew it would save the lives of 100 000 others you didn't know." scenario.

[Havet]

Incoherent. And the baby isn't the aggressor.

Sure the baby isn't the agressor. But agressing against the "king" and the raiders/slavers isn't going to help because a) the slaves don't have enough weapons and b) what's to stop the raiders/slavers from just killing everybody?

In short, the real self-defense from previous agression is the one that returns slaves to their original free condition. And the baby with the cure is the only way to achieve that

[Robert]

Sure the baby isn't the agressor.

Then it isn't self defense. It's an immoral act taken in the name of liberation.

What if the rules required you to kill the baby in order to extract a cure from her brain or bone marrow. Would that be "self defense" too?

[ellipsis]

Take the baby, you get the kings crazy looking power armor when he dies.

[bcbm]

Well they certainly sound realistic. They sound very much like feudal time slavery options. Sure, they aren't good options. But not all the time we have good options.

generally there are more than two ways out of a given scenario in real life.

[Manifesto]

Its a videogame just take the baby but if you go NAP with it what the hell can you do, at all? But by all means kill the rich assholes at that one part, the ones that want you to blow up the town because they hate looking at "peasants". That was fun.:)

[Havet]

Then it isn't self defense. It's an immoral act taken in the name of liberation.

What if the rules required you to kill the baby in order to extract a cure from her brain or bone marrow. Would that be "self defense" too?

But the rules DON'T require that. The baby isn't an entity capable of recognizing right or wrong, or has any concept of morality. Since the only way to reverse the agression from the slaves is to kidnap (not hurting the baby) the baby, then I don't see nothing immoral about it.

Preventing a slave from kidnaping the baby would be going against the NAP, since it would be forbiding (agressing) the already agressed person from freeing herself from the initial agression.

[Havet]

generally there are more than two ways out of a given scenario in real life.

And in this case, those ways out are:

- Kidnap the baby and use it to become free

or

- Remain a slave and "hope" the kings will use the research to cure the disease (but by no means guaranteeing the people will become free)

[Skooma Addict]

But the rules DON'T require that. The baby isn't an entity capable of recognizing right or wrong, or has any concept of morality. Since the only way to reverse the agression from the slaves is to kidnap (not hurting the baby) the baby, then I don't see nothing immoral about it.

If you don't regard the baby as a person, then you could do anything to it without violating the NAP. If you can kidnap it, then you can throw it off a building. If you cannot throw it off a building, then you cannot kidnap it.


Preventing a slave from kidnaping the baby would be going against the NAP, since it would be forbiding (agressing) the already agressed person from freeing herself from the initial agression.

Lets say it was not a baby. Instead lets say it was an adult. We all recognize adults as persons. The slave could not kidnap the adult without violating the NAP. The fact that the slave is being aggressed against is irrelevant. The slave could aggress against the slave owners without violating the NAP, but not against an innocent person.

If you do not think a baby qualifies as a person, then you can aggress against it without violating the NAP.

[Havet]

If you don't regard the baby as a person, then you could do anything to it without violating the NAP. If you can kidnap it, then you can throw it off a building. If you cannot throw it off a building, then you cannot kidnap it.

Well that's a good argument. Can't seem to counter it.


Lets say it was not a baby. Instead lets say it was an adult. We all recognize adults as persons. The slave could not kidnap the adult without violating the NAP. The fact that the slave is being aggressed against is irrelevant. The slave could aggress against the slave owners without violating the NAP, but not against an innocent person.

Well this makes sense. But then again, how do you solve the slaves condition if the only way would be to kidnap the baby?

Keep in mind killing all raiders is not a viable option due to them being too many, with too much guns and with advanced technology in their hands.

[Skooma Addict]

Well this makes sense. But then again, how do you solve the slaves condition if the only way would be to kidnap the baby?

Well I don't believe in the NAP in the context of subjective relativism either. I do not think the slaves are acting immorally if all they do is kidnap the baby. I assume they are living in very bad conditions.

According to the NAP, you could kidnap the baby and acknowledge that you acted immorally.

[Havet]

Well I don't believe in the NAP in the context of subjective relativism either. I do not think the slaves are acting immorally if all they do is kidnap the baby. I assume they are living in very bad conditions.

According to the NAP, you could kidnap the baby and acknowledge that you acted immorally.

Well certainly, but then again what would be the justification for kidnapping the baby other than "its for a greater good"?

I just hate to be stuck at utilitarian arguments. They can be used to justify some very bad things.

[Robert]

I don't see nothing immoral about it.Remember this in the OP?


The moral dilemma happens whenWhat's the dilemma if you "don't see nothing" immoral about it?

[Havet]

What's the dilemma if you don't see nothing immoral about it?

Others might.

[Robert]

Put the baby back or I'm callin' the cops.

That would be Scotland Yard to you. Old chap.

[Skooma Addict]

Well certainly, but then again what would be the justification for kidnapping the baby other than "its for a greater good"?

I just hate to be stuck at utilitarian arguments. They can be used to justify some very bad things.

Yes, utilitarianism can be used to justify very bad things. Also, utilitarianism is an incoherent doctrine because it is impossible to measure utility. But the reason why I think the slaves are not acting immorally is not because it is for the greater good. You can be a virtue ethicist or an ethical egoist and justify kidnapping the baby for example. I would classify myself as a virtue ethicist of a certain variety.

[Havet]

Put the baby back or I'm callin' the cops.

That would be Scotland Yard to you. Old chap.

No cops. No government. No military. Only raiders and slaves. What's your call?

[Havet]

Yes, utilitarianism can be used to justify very bad things. Also, utilitarianism is an incoherent doctrine because it is impossible to measure utility. But the reason why I think the slaves are not acting immorally is not because it is for the greater good. You can be a virtue ethicist or an ethical egoist and justify kidnapping the baby for example. I would classify myself as a virtue ethicist of a certain variety.

So how would you justify it? I'm interesting in knowing :)

[Skooma Addict]

So how would you justify it? I'm interesting in knowing :)

This is all assuming that kidnapping the baby is an easy task.

Because my sense of what is moral/immoral requires me to. I am acting immorally if I do not attempt to free the slaves. This is because my prototype of a virtuous person would free the slaves. I consider it virtuous to have the moral urge to free the slaves at the expense of kidnapping a baby (whose life the virtuous person values less than that of a slaves). This may sound similar to a utilitarian argument, but it is not. The reason why it is good to save the baby has nothing to do with the greater good, and everything to do with virtue.

If a person walked by the place where the slaves were being held, and all they did is laugh, I would view this as immoral. A person who will not place positive obligations on people runs into just as many absurdities as the person who claims that it is always immoral to violate the NAP. Morality is really just a belief about what one ought to do. But what one ought to do is the virtuous thing to do.

So you attempt to imagine your prototype of a virtuous person, and then act as that prototype would as best as you can. People who are closer to your prototype are better than people who are not.

[Havet]

Save your sympathy for slavers for forums that actually give a shit.

The mother was not a slaver...

[Havet]

This is all assuming that kidnapping the baby is an easy task.

Because my sense of what is moral/immoral requires me to. I am acting immorally if I do not attempt to free the slaves. This is because my prototype of a virtuous person would free the slaves. I consider it virtuous to have the moral urge to free the slaves at the expense of kidnapping a baby (whose life the virtuous person values less than that of a slaves). This may sound similar to a utilitarian argument, but it is not. The reason why it is good to save the baby has nothing to do with the greater good, and everything to do with virtue.

If a person walked by the place where the slaves were being held, and all they did is laugh, I would view this as immoral. A person who will not place positive obligations on people runs into just as many absurdities as the person who claims that it is always immoral to violate the NAP. Morality is really just a belief about what one ought to do. But what one ought to do is the virtuous thing to do.

So you attempt to imagine your prototype of a virtuous person, and then act as that prototype would as best as you can. People who are closer to your prototype are better than people who are not.

Seems a pretty reasonable stance. Thanks for posting.

[bcbm]

The mother was not a slaver...

she was clearly living a privileged life based on the fact that her husband was the leader of a slaving enterprise, with full knowledge of that fact.

[Havet]

she was clearly living a privileged life based on the fact that her husband was the leader of a slaving enterprise, with full knowledge of that fact.

There's still a difference between aggressing someone directly and/or taking advantage of someone's aggression.

For example, there's a difference between you stealing workers directly rather than taking advantage of products corporations provide which came from that aggression.

[blank]

i kidnapped her. save her from becoming raider scum. got her a bunch of teddy bears from the sewer place too and bottle-capitalized majorly... depends though on type of character am play. make some am do some just plain twisted shit