Quote:
Originally Posted by BWTraveller
You made my point for me with that definition. They never said what they're doing is the right or moral thing, and they never said anything about it being right or wrong to save people or anything like that. You're imposing assumptions of morals on them as well as assumptions of how much or little they know about the Waves. It could very well be that they're wrong and there are other ways to deal with the waves. It could even be that they're completely mistaken and killing the other Heroes and dooming this other world won't do anything. But they have clearly been completely convinced of it, and we have no real reason to believe that this was a conclusion they came to lightly.
If you choose you can certainly view this as them claiming some moral high ground or trying to make themselves feel better by saving people they're going to kill anyway, but I for one think it fits better and is a preferable viewpoint to think that jumping in to save people in danger is kind of wired into them (something I'd expect of a serious long-term hero) to the point that even if they know they're on a mission that will end in those people's death they still save them for now out of habit or reflex, or because there really is a part of them that can't stand this and in these short term moments that side wins out.
But again you didn't answer my question. Suppose for a moment that, knowing that doing so would doom their world to destruction or at least doom millions to death over the course of the Waves, those three chose not to attack the Heroes on the other side. They travel about and do their best to actively save people in trouble and protect them from the Waves. But they're refusing to carry out an action that would put an end to these Waves and save millions more than they can protect on their own. Are they hypocrites for trying to save and protect these people they're dooming by inaction?
|
I already answered that in my previous post. IS dooming this world the only way? Do they know it as fact? Can they know it as fact? Furthermore, how do they know this method will even work? Do they have a prior instance to reference? Are they grasping at straws out of desperation?
Look we're clearly just going around and around in circles until one of us gets bored and walks away. We have differing points of view on the same piece of information and I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this if we're now on the third repetition of this. Let's just agree to disagree at this point. I don't feel I'm wrong on this and neither do you. There's no objective "right" answer to this. Just different points of view. Which highlights the problem.