Sliding Scale of Unavoidable Versus Unforgivable: Difference between revisions
Sliding Scale of Unavoidable Versus Unforgivable (view source)
Revision as of 02:23, 18 August 2023
, 9 months ago→[[Literature]]: Replaced redirects
m (Mass update links) |
(→[[Literature]]: Replaced redirects) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 9:
In a [[Sadistic Choice]], it can be argued that ''both'' options would be wrong, so unless you find a way to [[Take a Third Option]], you will do wrong no matter what you do. Then again, in the same situation, it could be argued that both options are right; that they are ''both'' the "lesser evil", although in different ways. Furthermore, it's not like everyone is ''capable'' of taking a third option, as that sort of thing requires one to be able to think outside of the box, so to speak, and the power to overcome the measures set in place to restrict them to two.
Closely related not only to [[Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism]], but also to [[Sliding Scale of Silliness Versus Seriousness]] and [[Moral Dissonance]], mixed with a heavy dose of [[Your Mileage May Vary]]. A highly idealistic plot might very well feature brave heroes who slay countless humans or humanoids, the mass-murder or even [[Would Be Rude to Say Genocide|genocide]] being [[Hand Wave
Since a [[Principles Zealot]] and a [[Totalitarian Utilitarian]] measure this scale quite differently, they are very likely to mutually accuse ''each other'' of [[Jumping Off the Slippery Slope]]. To some extent, this is even true for their reasonable counterparts, the [[For Happiness|Ethical Hedonist]] and [[For Great Justice|The Deontologist]].
Of course, the issue of sliding scales and slippery slopes does not only include the active action of actively doing something, it ''also'' includes the passive action of inaction - to choose to do nothing and just let things happen is ''also'' a choice. A choice that you can be held accountable for, just like any other choice.
Also, when the Sliding Scale Of Unavoidable Versus Unforgivable comes up in a story, it can be either intentionally or indirectly. It's intentional when the writers decide to make the situation [[Grey and Grey Morality|ambiguous and debatable]]. It's indirect when the situation is intended to be [[Black and White Morality|unambiguous]], but the reader/viewer goes [[What the Hell, Hero?|"waaait a minute"]]. However, one can never really be sure what version was the intended one, considering that [[Word of God]] is vulnerable to [[Getting Crap Past the Radar]] as well as blatant [[Retcon|RetCons]].
Line 40:
** In the films, Moody even uses all three curses against a test animal in front of a roomful of students, without any of them even pointing out that he just said they were ''unforgivable.'' Also, Moody must have really hated that little critter for the Killing Curse to work, which raises the question of ''why''.
*** Remember that {{spoiler|it wasn't Moody but Barty Crouch Jr who did that}} and it makes more sense.
** It's Voldemort's own fault that the heroes were free to use Unforgivables in ''[[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (novel)|Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]'', as the Ministry under his command [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Unforgivable_Curses#Use legalised them] with the intention of using them against his enemies. [[Hoist by His Own Petard|Isn't karma wonderful?]]
* [[Three Worlds Collide]] and its ''extremely'' [[Shoot the Dog]] "True Ending", which inspired plenty of debate in the comments.
* In [[The Dresden Files]], Harry{{spoiler|'s subconscious}} makes this argument, pointing out that if {{spoiler|Harry}} takes the high road in Dead Beat, thousands of people will die.
** {{spoiler|Lasciel}} tries very hard to make you believe that the decisions you make are unavoidable. At one point {{spoiler|Harry}} went nuts on a mook and might have been able to save an injured Muggle if he'd let that mook run. This was before he knew that {{spoiler|Lasciel was in his head, making him act towards the unforgivable end of the spectrum, while assuring him that it was just an unavoidable situation}}.
** Harry has a minor one of these, with shades of [[My God, What Have I Done?]], when he realizes how many antagonists have ended up dead in his cases. Bonus points for that being from a ''mobster''.
** {{spoiler|Molly}} toys with this line a lot, including using forbidden mind magic.
** Harry's mother was known for pointing out the gray areas in this scale that she felt weren't adequately covered by the Laws of Magic, or were covered too harshly.
** {{spoiler|Harry}} eventually crosses this line wholesale in one of the later books {{spoiler|by finally becoming the Winter Knight}}. Though he believes it was unavoidable, in the next book he gets convinced that it was unforgivable, based on the decisions that {{spoiler|Molly made in response}}.
** Harry frequently points out to whichever [[Monster of the Week]] that's trying to recruit him that while they're touting the unavoidable end of the spectrum, he knows that they'll push him to the unforgivable end pretty quickly.
Line 55:
* ''[[Star Trek: The Original Series]]'': In "A City on the Edge of Forever", Kirk had to make a terrible choice -- {{spoiler|allow a wonderfully gifted, compassionate, forward-thinking woman to die, or fail to save history from devolving into a [[Crapsack World]].}} Kirk rather uncharacteristically didn't [[Take a Third Option]], such as, say, trusting her with the truth.
** In his defence, not only is letting {{spoiler|her die}} the safest and quite possibly most Starfleet-regulation compliant way, it being the historical case, but attempting to [[Take a Third Option]] by telling her the truth would have been very, very risky. {{spoiler|The story would be quite unbelievable... and if she doesn't trust them, then what?}}
* ''[[Doctor Who]]'': Seeing the number of times you can make the Doctor contemplate this scale is the pastime of the show's writers, especially since the reboot. The Doctor had to kill<ref>(technically, 'erase from continuity')</ref> his entire race in order to protect the universe from destruction, and even though he knows it was the right thing to do, he still feels guilt-ridden. Time and time again, he is forced to make the [[Sadistic Choice]] of killing and committing genocide for the greater good. On the whole, the show tends to fall on the [[I Did What I Had to Do]] side, though actions such as killing all the innocent Racnoss babies (well, the little Racnoss babies were probably going to devour the whole planet and go on a tear across the galaxy if allowed to grow up) tend to get the occasional [[What the Hell, Hero?]] from other characters.
** It was less the choice, which was understandable, than the mindset in which he made it and how he carried it off that freaked Donna out. Although the whole [[Unfortunate Implications|ancient-racial-enemies-therefore-I-destroy-you]] bit probably didn't help.
* ''[[Torchwood]]'' pulls it now and then too, but especially in ''Children of Earth'', where Jack Harkness sacrifices his own grandson in order to prevent a tenth of all the world's children from being sold into perpetual mindless slavery for an alien race that wants to use their body chemicals as recreational drugs. Throws the whole [[Wouldn't Hurt a Child]] thing up for inspection. And [[Word of God]] says he couldn't even have done that had his [[Morality Chain]] not bitten the dust in the previous episode.
* ''[[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]]'' provides us with three in the fifth season finale. First, Ben is convinced that he has no choice, and can either fail to fight a god or earn that god's favor. Second, Giles {{spoiler|kills Ben}}, saying he had to do it because, unlike Buffy, he's not a hero. Then Buffy faces what she's been trying to prevent, whether to kill Dawn or let the world suffer hell. In the end, she opts to {{spoiler|[[Take a Third Option]]}}.
== [[Tabletop Games]] ==
* Sooner or later, a DM who's a massive dick is going to put the player who's playing a paladin into a situation where, no matter what solution they choose, there's some interpretation under which it is considered classically "evil" and will thus cause them to fall. Since they've put the player in the situation in the first place, chances are they won't allow any creative solutions which allow the paladin to stay a paladin, either. A good DM instead makes them deal with it in character, and encourages taking a third option if they can find one.
== [[Video Games]] ==
Line 79:
* The season-2 opener of ''[[Avatar: The Last Airbender]]'' spends time talking about this. Aang has always been a [[Martial Pacifist]], but now that his [[Superpowered Neutral Side]] is a known factor, people are encouraging him to go visit the Fire Nation capitol and go all Godzilla on it for the sake of ending the war, and he can't decide what to do. (It's interesting to debate what Toph and Zuko would have said on the subject, had they been present.)
** Also notable that in the finale ''immediately previous'' to this season, Aang wiped out a large Fire fleet while in the [[Superpowered Neutral Side|Avatar State]] and fused with [[Did We Just Have Tea with Cthulhu?|the Ocean]]. Casualty estimates are [[What Do You Mean It's for Kids?|of course]] not provided in the work, and fan guesses tend to range from the dozens to the thousands. Aang tends to be given a moral pass on that one, since he was pretty obviously not in control of his own actions at the time (the Ocean spirit continued the rampage even after Aang seperated from it).
** Brought up once again in the series finale, with the interesting twist that Aang's definition of
== [[Real Life]] ==
| |||