|
Post by Orion on Mar 19, 2009 17:25:18 GMT -5
Back to the original question...
Personally, I believe it to be extremely unethical. To do something this personal to someone else, without their consent or even their knowledge... It is akin to stealing something ridiculously valuable and important to the owner. In my opinion, it does not matter if it affects them adversely or not; it is still a horrible thing to be doing.
However, in this case, I am only referring to psions who have the ability to draw from other sources. If we're talking in context of psi-vamps here, who really have no other choice, than I suppose it is ethical as long as the person in question is not harmed by it.
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on Mar 22, 2009 23:15:25 GMT -5
Nice point.
What if you had thousands of lil drones attached to thousands of non-psi aware people and only used them in case of emergency?
The twist. Dum dum dum....
|
|
|
Post by miri on Mar 24, 2009 21:47:00 GMT -5
I don't generally care for ethical discussions, as they seem largely pointless. The ethical and moral beliefs of individuals are largely unaffected by snippets of argument and ideology as is found in threads like this.
That said my opinion is one which shifts, largely based on my mood. In an emergency situation (let's define an emergency as a significant threat of serious injury or death to you or one under your protection) most logical steps can be justified. If you can protect yourself and/or others by borrowing energy from a renewable source (in this case a crowd or other large group of people) without causing any harm, or very minimal harm (as in Orion's perception of violation of individuals), I see no moral or ethical issue.
On the other hand, if it's for shits and giggles it seems superfluous beyond reconciliation. I'm opposed to any form of waste, on a logical basis as much as an ethical one. Draining the masses for no apparent cause, as is presented in the first question, seems frivolous and self-serving. Then again, presenting something so relatively petty seems frivolous, too.
Perhaps there should be a focus on more important questions of ethics? Such as: "Is the use of non-human astral entities as guinea pigs for techniques and constructs which may ultimately prove useful to the practitioner and others (but can cause harm to the test subjects) ethical?" That's just one branch of the question: "Do we extend the rights of sentient incarnate beings to those whom are permanently dis-incarnate?" and further "What rights ought we grant to unaware humans, when it comes to energy work? (Most inform other workers energetically when they pass through claimed 'territory', or move nearby another worker, for instance, so is there an obligation to inform these unaware folk that we'll be doing our sometimes odd stuff rather near to them?)"
Just some thoughts for meatier debate...
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on Mar 25, 2009 2:14:00 GMT -5
Why add thoughts to a meatier debate if you "don't generally care for ethical discussions, as they seem largely pointless"? Just curious. Not sarcastic. I dont see them as pointless, unless the only thing your trying to do is change others to your ethics. If that were the case, I'd bring up my home-boy Jesus (Christian Jesus, not the Mexican one.) Ive always found it interesting to see what other people thought about what they should/nt do. And I've always found it hard to balance what the Bible says about ethics and psionics (yes, there is some things that apply) with practicality and fun. And considering I'm almost a pastor that might be useful info to have. I must also admit that I am probably more fringe on psi ethics when it comes to the common thoughts. I'd drain energy from all life forms in a 1000 mile radius if i knew nobody would know if I needed said energy. Some of my. . . projects. . . need a lot of energy, and I find that taking it from other life is the funnest way to do so. Does that mean I am currently doing it? Not in the least. In fact, I try not to do it, because you never know when your gonna run into someone that knows what your doing and doesnt like it. And I am a pacifist usually. As for the astral entity guinea pig thing, sure. I dont see why not. As long as you can beat up their bigger buddies. Do we grant rights to the non-energy working populace? Why should we? If they are ignorant, then any rights we grant them would be like throwing diamonds to the swine. If they are knowledgeable of our doings, then I would say give them rights. Some of my projects depend on them not knowing. As for your question about incarnation, disincarnation, etc, yeah. I saved it for last because I had to look up disincarnate in the dictionary. woot! dictionary! Anyways, I see no reason why any rights granted to someone who is incarnate should not be given to those who are not incarnate, or disincarnate. That would be like depriving paralyzed people from going grocery shopping, old people of their driving licenses, or my right to own a friggen 12 gauge semi-auto shotty and carry it with me in public places. Anyways, theres my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on Mar 25, 2009 6:00:29 GMT -5
People know what they know. Giving them the right to that which they don't understand is pointless.
"Hey bob, I promise I'll obtain consent if I ever take some dead skin cells and experiment on them in my basement."
Save that it would be far worse than that as bob doesn't know what dead skin cells are or an experiment. That's about what it would be like.
|
|
|
Post by miri on Mar 26, 2009 19:19:23 GMT -5
Why add thoughts to a meatier debate if you "don't generally care for ethical discussions, as they seem largely pointless"? Just curious. Not sarcastic. Because even if it is pointless, it can be amusing. Those two statements seem to contradict eachother. Why experiment on and brutalize some energetic beings, and not others? Because one set has vague memories of having been in a body? That seems flimsy.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on Mar 26, 2009 20:22:14 GMT -5
Because people are inherently irrational. It is only when they think abstractly that they are able to be reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by aerugo on Apr 2, 2009 6:34:12 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to taking energy from a 'dumb' human/animal/...
Why should I care? Think about it: is it really that unethical? You want to do the 'right' thing, right? Well, that human or humans have definitely done something bad that week, without a question. Lie to their spouse, kid, boss, ...; didn't give money to the orphanage when they came to collect even though he had the money, ...
Okay, maybe those are petty excuses. But why shouldn't you take the energy from those humans? If they aren't psions they aren't going to notice it's gone? I don't care much for ethics.
|
|
|
Post by Chain_the_Warforged on Apr 2, 2009 12:28:25 GMT -5
Well, anyone would be harmed by having energy taken in a quantity that would be useful for a psion or vamp. Also, what gives you the right to judge the actions of others? I haven't done anything especially bad in the last week, but by your logic, I somehow deserve to be punished.
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on Apr 2, 2009 22:20:52 GMT -5
2 wrongs do not make a right.
Never judge your actions based on the actions of others.
|
|
|
Post by aerugo on Apr 3, 2009 15:30:40 GMT -5
Hm, I really need to be more clear in my posts.
Ethics are in my opinion useless. There is no good and evil, right and wrong. Nobody deserves to be punished, but everybody is liable to be punished. That's the way it is and that's the way it will always be. That's nature's way and that's the law's way.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on Apr 3, 2009 19:59:23 GMT -5
No right, no wrong. So, is it wrong for me to rape little children? I wouldn't deserve to be punished.
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on Apr 6, 2009 14:56:45 GMT -5
There is no good and evil, right and wrong. Nobody deserves to be punished, but everybody is liable to be punished. If there is no evil, no wrong, then there would be no punishment. Your statement contradicts itself. In order for there to be punishment, a deed of wrongdoing must have been committed in the first place. Otherwise its just an unfortunate happenstance. And I disagree. There is a right and a wrong that is clearly defined by God and the bible. If you interpret it like normal people do and not like the psychos who use it to justify murder and genocide and greed, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Chain_the_Warforged on Apr 6, 2009 16:05:11 GMT -5
This might be a bit of a tangent, but a literal interpretation of the bible results in several contradictions. I can't really say that all of the moral rules are completely moral - if I were to die, I would unquestionably end up in Hell, but I consider myself to be a reasonably good person. However, I do acknowledge Christianity as a valid religion, and have no quarrel with the vast majority of Christians.
I'm not Christian, so if you feel I'm incorrect, please correct me.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on Apr 6, 2009 19:20:48 GMT -5
Leftooth. Saying that morals exist because a bunch of people a long time ago said so is invalid. Also, God did not write the bible. People did.
Chain, the bible was written by people, of course it's flawed. It's also written by a great many different people. Many of them disagreed with each other. I would be willing to talk to you about that but I feel that "converting" people in the middle of a thread is a bit rude.
If you actually want to talk about it pm me or catch me on msn. But according to christianity, if you do not believe that Christ died for your sins (An interesting study in magick by the way. The mechanics are quite intruiging) then you are not going to heaven.
|
|