StarCraft® II

10/10/2011 12:04 PMPosted by Chris

And yet I'm pretty sure under your moral pretences, you would see burning the Haven colony as the right choice. But how? People live and people die. It's a disease and is just as natural as cancer. You shouldn't even consider helping the colonists.

Oops, forgot about this part.

I didn't consider helping the colonists, as soon as I heard the choices I thought it was obvious that it should be burned. It seemed lie such an incredible longshot that it would be irresponsible and immoral to try and help them.

10/10/2011 01:16 PMPosted by Rainbowhawk

Plus what happens when we let everything happen and do nothing about people in pain? We become disconectted to one another. I know that not all diseases should be cured but we shouldn't just sit on the sidelines for every outbreak that happens. There is a middle ground in all this.

Are you still not seeing the hypocrisy behind what you're saying?

What you describe is EXACTLY what you're doing right now. You preach about not sitting on the sidelines waiting for something to happen?
-Get off your computer and go to Iran where oppression is the norm and pre-emptively stop the nuclear exchange that's bound to happen between it and either Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or likely Israel.
-Get off your !@# and head to Syria where the worse reactions to the Arab Spring are moments away from unfolding
-Get off your delusional moral high ground and get on over to $%^-*ia where religious and tribal cleavages have made the !@#$% Delta little more than a warzone

Come on, you're trying to preach what you are while you're actions show the immediate opposite. That's why human morality cannot be taken at face value. The naive and the hopelessly blind idealistic trick themselves and fabricate these fantasies of moral superiority - preaching in their minds and letting people burn in the real world.

10/10/2011 01:45 PMPosted by LovelyMines

I didn't consider helping the colonists, as soon as I heard the choices I thought it was obvious that it should be burned. It seemed lie such an incredible longshot that it would be irresponsible and immoral to try and help them.

Obvious?

It should also be obvious that if one is presented with a chance to cure cancer, one should take it. And yet you chose not too.

Curing cancer, like burning the colony maximizes the happiness for the maximum number of people. Why the intransitivity? Where's the disconnect here?

Obvious?

It should also be obvious that if one is presented with a chance to cure cancer, one should take it. And yet you chose not too.

Curing cancer, like burning the colony maximizes the happiness for the maximum number of people. Why the intransitivity? Where's the disconnect here?

Personally, in this large sense I would argue that there is no strict morality...at least with the colony situation. There are pros and cons to either choice, whether you choose to defend the colony or burn it. If you try to defend it then you are risking the lives of all of the healthy people in order to save all of them (morally ambiguous) whereas if you burn it you are sacrificing the lives of a large chunk to save another large chuck (still morally ambiguous).

Therefore, when I said it was 'obvious' that the better choice was to burn the colony, I was taking into consideration how slim of a chance it was that a cure could be found which greatly tips the pro/con scale of trying to save the colony into the con direction.

As for the cancer example, I feel that other factors are also in play beyond the simple sacrifice one-save billions dichotomy. Nature relies on the fact that livings things live and die for both balance and for evolution. If we prevent people from dying naturally then our population will sky rocket and people will starve to death (I'd rather have people die from cancer at the age of 70 than have a lot of children starving to death). If we put a cap on the number of children people can have, or only allow certain people to have children, then we are playing with our continuing evolution which could lead to disastrous effects.

Ultimately I think that curing cancer is technically a morally good thing in that it would save human lives, but on the grand scheme of things I would have to conclude that it is not necessarily a purely good thing. As such, I would certainly not sacrifice my life for the possibility of curing cancer, though if it was a near guarantee that it would cure it I would consider it. (in this case the probability that sacrifice would bring the desired outcome tilts the scale in favour of it)

***

I want to reiterate again that I certainly believe that for the most part we are not morally good. My answers will reflect that belief as I hold my life in high value and as such would require something of at least equally high value for me to risk my life.

Are you still not seeing the hypocrisy behind what you're saying?What you describe is EXACTLY what you're doing right now. You preach about not sitting on the sidelines waiting for something to happen?-Get off your computer and go to Iran where oppression is the norm and pre-emptively stop the nuclear exchange that's bound to happen between it and either Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or likely Israel.-Get off your !@# and head to Syria where the worse reactions to the Arab Spring are moments away from unfolding-Get off your delusional moral high ground and get on over to $%^-*ia where religious and tribal cleavages have made the !@#$% Delta little more than a warzoneCome on, you're trying to preach what you are while you're actions show the immediate opposite. That's why human morality cannot be taken at face value. The naive and the hopelessly blind idealistic trick themselves and fabricate these fantasies of moral superiority - preaching in their minds and letting people burn in the real world.

So what do you want me to do? Not believe in my liberal philosophy anymore since I'm not doing what you are suggesting to prove my point? You don't even believe in helping people. Well I donated to some causes like the Tsunami and Hurrican Ketrina and I'm collecting yoplay yogert lids for cancer awarness month.

What we claim to be and what we are are two very different things. Confusing the two always leads to the disconnect.

I donate to causes too. But guess what? The average sustenance of a western world individual can sustain 5-6 people. Would I give up my house to half a dozen Iraqis who live in the worst possible conditions of famine, violence and oppression? No. Your donations amount to little morality because the cost they incur upon you are so marginally small in the lavish life of a first world-er.

I never said I don't believe in helping people. I said that helping people in ways that exact so little consequence on the acter is not morally correct so much as morally indifferent. The difference is that I actually understand that true morality is determined by actions rather than fantasized idealism.

I say: If a man does not act moral he is not moral
You say: If a man thinks he is moral he is moral, even if he doesn't act moral

Mengsk left Tarsonis to die. But now he's somehow moral because he is empathetic despite his atrocities? Because he loves despite his cruelties? Because he "looks deep into his heart" despite unfathomable actions? Mengsk is moral despite the fact that he acts immorally? No way in hell.

Oh, there's morality in Mengsk's action; it's called "poetic justice". The Confederates nuked his homeworld, so he took revenge by allowing their capital world to be invaded by the Zerg, the very weapon the Confederates had been testing on fringe world population.

Arcturus is somewhat an anti-villain; while he does act as a villain, he just doesn't view himself as such. Hence his outburst following New Gettysburg and later Media Blitz; he refuses being labelled as a bad guy.

Arcturus is somewhat an anti-villain; while he does act as a villain, he just doesn't view himself as such.

A character thinking he's only an anti-villain doesn't make him an anti-villain. Mengsk is a villain.

TVTropes disagrees with you:

Type III: Well-Intentioned Anti-Villain

The Well-Intentioned Extremist. They may believe in a good goal, but use whatever means there are to achieve it. The sympathy the audience can garner for this character comes from the fact that they basically share the same goal as the hero, but are pragmatically, expediently, or pessimistically, ruthless about it. They can very much be conscious about their morally questionable actions, but feel that there is no other way. Common antagonist in White and Grey Morality scenarios and relatively likely to be redeemed if shown the error of their ways depending on how "extremist" they are. These Anti Villains may become more malicious true villains, but they are more likely to either stay in this category or possibly morph into a Type II Anti-Villain. The Type III can also be a revolutionary of some sort, fighting against the main character only due to their affiliation to some government or organization, and usually fighting for a noble cause. Alternatively, they may not even realize what they're doing is wrong or making things worse in the first place. The defining Trope for this type of Anti-Villain would be the Well-Intentioned Extremist, of course.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAntivillains

That's Arcturus Mengsk in a nutshell.

hi

10/11/2011 10:41 AMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf

Oh, there's morality in Mengsk's action; it's called "poetic justice". The Confederates nuked his homeworld, so he took revenge by allowing their capital world to be invaded by the Zerg, the very weapon the Confederates had been testing on fringe world population.

That's not morality. That's a self-imposed justification for heinous acts. Much like the majority of those who claim moral superiority without moral action.

Arcturus is somewhat an anti-villain; while he does act as a villain, he just doesn't view himself as such. Hence his outburst following New Gettysburg and later Media Blitz; he refuses being labelled as a bad guy.

Mengsk isn't an anti-villain.

Under your strain of logic, most villains are undesirably anti-villains. Very few people which we identify as villains would regard their own actions as evil or bad. Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein and Addid never viewed themselves as villains. That isn't justification to call them anti-villains in the slightest. Being delusional or individually dignified is separate from villainy and anti-villainy.

What are Mengsk's noble goals? From everything we've seen he's a megalomaniac or something close to it. He doesn't really ascend to power with the goal of safeguarding humanity from the zerg and protoss. He does it because he's got a vendetta against the Confederacy and because he wants absolute power. Not to mention the fact that the way he seized power was completely deplorable and genocidal.

Well, overthrowing the Confederation, uniting the Terrans against the Zerg, trying his best to fight off Kerrigan's second onslaught, reforming the Ghost Academy, allowing freedom of speech to a certain extent, rehabilitating Korhal IV, allowing economic and cultural prosperity... If he was Evil incarnate, he wouldn't have done any of that; he would have merely made the sector a living hell for everyone - including the Core Worlds - and would have just grabbed the money and run when things began to heat up.

He's clearly an a-hole, no doubt about it, but he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing. And to be honest, apart from Donny Vermillion and the occasional overzealous Dominion officers on fringe worlds, the Dominion doesn't look too bad as far as fictional dystopian civilizations go.

10/11/2011 01:12 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf

Well, overthrowing the Confederation, uniting the Terrans against the Zerg, trying his best to fight off Kerrigan's second onslaught, reforming the Ghost Academy, allowing freedom of speech to a certain extent, rehabilitating Korhal IV, allowing economic and cultural prosperity... If he was Evil incarnate, he wouldn't have done any of that;

Yes he would have. Mengsk is nothing more than a stationary bandit. The only way he can truly derive power is if those he derives power from are at a manageable level of happiness that they will accept this. If Mengsk chooses not to allow economic and cultural prosperity, his personal level of wealth and happiness diminishes. Therefore all these things you have listed isn't a result of Mengsk's apparent selflessness. They are bi-products of Mengsk's selfishness.

Just because someone believes they are doing the right thing isn't grounds to assume that person is any less of a villain (besides being tragically delusional). How many villains believe they are villains? If said villainy has an ultimate motive of prosperity, violence and all being a means to a greater end, then perhaps an anti-villain label is appropriate. But Mengsk shows nothing but selfish and violent will.

he took down Tarsonis becuase he wanted power No, he did it to carry out his revenge against the Confederates for nuking Korhal IV.
he stopped kerrigan becuase he wanted power No, he did it to take revenge on one of his family's assassins, and also because she was starting to question his orders and had outlived her usefulness...
he reformed the ghost academy because some braindead writer thought it would be cool
he kept life OK for someone becuase he doenst want to look out his window and see fire Your ever-cynical opinion is irrelevant here.
he has some wierd hard on for Korhal so naturally hed want it to prosper Korhal IV isn't the only prosperous Dominion world out there.
everything he does is for more power for him No.

uniting the Terrans against the Zerg

the Terrans are no more united under him then the confederacy

Go read Brood War manual; the Terran were united until the UED showed up.

No, he did it to carry out his revenge against the Confederates for nuking Korhal IV.

no he did it to gain power

Canon disagrees with you:

After Mengsk hit pay dirt as a prospector, his world turned upside down. Angus had declared Korhal’s independence from the Confederacy, which responded by assassinating Arcturus’s entire family. Although intended to decapitate Korhal’s budding revolution, the attack had an altogether different effect: it transformed Mengsk into the uprising’s greatest leader. Mengsk had never agreed with his father’s fiery anti-Confederate rhetoric in the past, but his family’s deaths filled him with an unwavering desire for vengeance.

As Mengsk waged a crippling guerilla war against the Confederacy, his enemies responded by bombarding Korhal with one thousand Apocalypse-class nuclear missiles. The attack annihilated all life on the planet. Mengsk, who had been off world at the time, renamed his revolutionaries the Sons of Korhal in honor of those who had died, and he continued his uprising with increasingly ruthless tactics.

Even in the complete bio, there's no mention of him being power-hungry or anything. In fact, it suggests that Mengsk never sought power just for the sake of power.

As a scion of the Confederacy’s elite Old Families, Mengsk had an easy road ahead of him: inherit his parents’ vast fortune and live a life of fame and power. Yet following in the footsteps of his father, Angus, a Confederate senator on Korhal IV, wasn’t for Arcturus. Even from a young age, he was determined to make his own way in the galaxy.

Oh, and about this part:

Emperor Arcturus Mengsk I rules over the Terran Dominion with an iron fist and a silver tongue. To ensure humanity's survival through the dark days ahead, Mengsk is committed to uniting Terrans under his leadership... whether by choice or by force.

Anti-villain, indeed.

right she was a threat to his power

Mengsk would have gotten power anyway, with or without Kerrigan. He ditched her because he essentially hated her and had no longer use for her.

It was her assassination of the independent senator Angus Mengsk that brought her to the attention of his ambitious son, Arcturus. At first wishing to extract revenge from Kerrigan for his father’s murder, Arcturus soon realized that she was much more useful as a weapon against the Confederacy.

[...]

Mengsk would take advantage of that loyalty, abandoning her to die on Tarsonis when the mission was complete. He couldn’t run the risk of having a powerful weapon like Kerrigan running loose in the shadow of his new government, and he couldn’t resist the chance to claim some vengeance long overdue.

To ensure humanity's survival through the dark days ahead, Mengsk is committed to uniting Terrans under his leadership... whether by choice or by force.

This would probably be the only redeeming part of his character. But even this sentiment I don't ever really remember him expressing. It was mentioned in his inauguration speech, though that could just have been empty words designed to convince the masses that he was a good guy.

It's because Arcturus's not a protagonist and his actions are only viewed from the perspective of individuals who truly despise him (i.e. Raynor). Otherwise, his character isn't so different than, say, Lelouch Lamperouge from Code Geass; he's ruthless and manipulative, yet to him power is only a mean to achieve a goal, not the goal itself.