Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Robin Hood Morality Test
#1
 x 0 


https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-...bigale.pdf?

anyone done this before? interested to hear your opinions
 
Reply
#2
 x 0 


(14-03-2016, 09:30 PM)████ Wrote: https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-...bigale.pdf?

anyone done this before? interested to hear your opinions

way to alienate the boatman from the other characters with an out-of-place name.

so how does this work? am I robin hood?
 
Reply
#3
 x 0 


Worst to least worst:

1. Sinbad
2. Abigale
3. John
4. Tom
5. The Mother

While writing this out, I actually ended up swapping Tom and John's positions.

Sinbad, arguably, acted the worst. I kinda want to say that he wasn't that bad, since Abigale could have easily declined his request, but he sure took advantage of what seemed to be Abigale's powerful drive to see Tom. He leveraged his position of power, which I would rate the worst thing that happened on this list.

Abigale broke a promise that I inferred - that in her and Tom's relationship, she (and possibly he) would not sleep with other people. I infer this solely because of Tom's reaction. If this is not the case then, yeah, Tom's easily #1 dick. Anyway, although her goal was pure, the means did not justify the ends, and in many ways, defeated the entire foundation of the ends.

John's a fucking lose cannon. Smacking Tom up over what? Being upset that his girlfriend cheated on him?

Tom was a bit of a dick, but it's implied that he had reason to react the way he did. Yeah, she tried to prove her love to him by doing whatever was necessary to meet him, but that action was self defeating, and Tom was ( I think ) justified in not supporting that. It's not stated, either, if Tom never cools off and later apologises and reconciles with Abigale, we just just a fully justifiable immediate reaction.

The mum's a bit of a dick for not offering an opinion, but who really cares?
İmage
 
Reply
#4
 x 0 


I really wanna debate the morality of the mum's actions.
İmage
 
Reply
#5
 x 0 


Here goes:

  1. John (worst)
  2. Abigale's mother
  3. ...
  4. ...
  5. ...
  6. Abigale
  7. ...
  8. ...
  9. ...
  10. Tom
  11. Sinbad (least worst)
Let's get something straight: John straight up assaulted Tom. I absolutely detest needless violence. If you cannot control your anger, then you need to be an adult, and seek professional help. Otherwise you are allowing yourself to hurt others (and yourself), which is never okay, and is an incredibly immature course of action. John is an asshole, and should be taking a good hard look at himself if he thinks that Tom was the bad guy.

Abigale's mother is not far behind by just being a neglectful bitch. Her daughter is coming to her out of desperation for advice to a really serious problem in her life, and she just brushes her off? Fuck off. A parent holds a sacred responsibility to guide and advise their children. Abigale's mistake, in this situation, is her mother's mistake. These first two make me so angry. By far the worst.

The rest of these are nowhere near as bad. Abigale is an idiot, and impatient. Something we've all been guilty of, especially when we're younger. That's natural. It was a mistake, and she (presumably) broke Tom's trust (based entirely off of his reaction), but she'll learn from it. Wrong action, but with the best intentions. Ignore that quote about the road to Hell; she didn't punch anyone.

Then a whooooole lot further down come the next two. Tom got angry. Fair enough. He literally did nothing wrong (because didn't act on his anger, and goddamn punch someone), but I've abritarily put him above Sinbad, because anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

Sinbad also did nothing wrong. Everyone else's relationship to Abigale was clearly stated, while Sinbad was simply introduced by his name. Therefore we can safely assume that he has no relationship with Abigale, and doesn't know about her particular situation. He was a businessman, and he made an offer, which he had every right to do (presuming that he owned the boat). If there was enough demand for it, someone would come along with a better offer. That is how business works.

Anyway: OPINIONS
İmage
 
Reply
#6
 x 0 


(25-03-2016, 06:08 PM)Selegraphon Wrote: Anyway: OPINIONS
too right opinions. I got some opinions

Selegraphon Wrote: Sinbad also did nothing wrong. Everyone else's relationship to Abigale was clearly stated, while Sinbad was simply introduced by his name. Therefore we can safely assume that he has no relationship with Abigale, and doesn't know about her particular situation. He was a businessman, and he made an offer, which he had every right to do (presuming that he owned the boat). If there was enough demand for it, someone would come along with a better offer. That is how business works.

Supply and demand is not a moral code. If supply and demand justifies demanding sex as payment then it justifies selling crystal meth and Jim Jones-y death cults. Exploiting desperate women is not a moral form of commerce. If she had offered him sex herself it would be a different matter.

Selegraphon Wrote: 
Abigale's mother is not far behind by just being a neglectful bitch. Her daughter is coming to her out of desperation for advice to a really serious problem in her life, and she just brushes her off? Fuck off. A parent holds a sacred responsibility to guide and advise their children. Abigale's mistake, in this situation, is her mother's mistake. These first two make me so angry. By far the worst.

Coming from the perspective that Sinbad was an innocent businessman, The Mother declining to give advice seems trivial. But we don't know how the fine details of Abigale and Tom's relationship, or how much The Mother knows, or even how old anyone is, her lack of action is (in my opinion) difficult to condemn. In a situation where we don't understand the full picture, I can't blame her for making a purely neutral action.
 
Reply
#7
 x 0 


(25-03-2016, 08:38 PM)crispier taco Wrote:
Selegraphon Wrote: Sinbad also did nothing wrong. Everyone else's relationship to Abigale was clearly stated, while Sinbad was simply introduced by his name. Therefore we can safely assume that he has no relationship with Abigale, and doesn't know about her particular situation. He was a businessman, and he made an offer, which he had every right to do (presuming that he owned the boat). If there was enough demand for it, someone would come along with a better offer. That is how business works.

Supply and demand is not a moral code. If supply and demand justifies demanding sex as payment then it justifies selling crystal meth and Jim Jones-y death cults. Exploiting desperate women is not a moral form of commerce. If she had offered him sex herself it would be a different matter.

The problem with morals is that they are entirely personal. In my opinion, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about sex (and for that matter, drugs, even as hard as methamphetamine. Death cults are an entirely different issue however...), and such it follows that a transaction involving sex (in a vacuum) is likewise just as intrinsically not immoral.

I guess the main area where our opinions differ is whether he is taking advantage of her. As I reasoned above, he was not, because it seemed to me as if he didn't know her or her particular situation. However, I guess it would be similarly easy to argue that he was taking advantage of her because of the floods (like some form of perverted Noah), regardless of whether he knew her or not. Then again, maybe that was his usual rate.

It's really hard to tell anything from the ambiguous wording (which is entirely the point, I guess), and most of it is seeing where your personal biases and assumptions lie.

But at least he didn't ironically stone-cold knock a dude down for having the audacity to be annoyed.
İmage
 
Reply
#8
 x 1 


(25-03-2016, 09:20 PM)Selegraphon Wrote: The problem with morals is that they are entirely personal. In my opinion, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about sex (and for that matter, drugs, even as hard as methamphetamine. Death cults are an entirely different issue however...), and such it follows that a transaction involving sex (in a vacuum) is likewise just as intrinsically not immoral.

Fair point, but while there may be nothing strictly immoral about sex, there are two factors you don't seem to be addressing in your justifications.

1) Tom and Abigail have a bond and form of promise to each other which can be explicitly broken by having sex with someone else. Abigail having sex with someone is not immoral by itself, but when coupled with her apparent relationship with Tom, it's a betrayal that she knowingly chose to make.

2) Sinbad is complicit in this as well. I'm not going to presume the details not elaborated on in the text, but Sinbad chose to leverage the demand against his supply in an arguably immoral way.

(25-03-2016, 09:20 PM)Selegraphon Wrote: As I reasoned above, he was not, because it seemed to me as if he didn't know her or her particular situation.

It would have taken Abigail two seconds to tell Sinbad. If she didn't she's worse. If she did, Sinbad's worse.

--Bonus round for John:

Physical abuse also isn't inherently worse than verbal or mental abuse. A smack to the head's about as bad as a really good feelings hurt. There'll be no lasting effects, just a wound to get over and then it's all forgotten about. Yeah, you can seriously hurt or kill someone with physical abuse, but that's a spectrum, not a straight value. You can also do some really, really nasty verbal and mental stuff to people as well. Morally, although I don't go about beating people up, I think the low end of the physical violence spectrum is really as harmful as some of the non-physical shit people do to each other.

Imagine John called Tom a cunt-faced rat. The nasty part of the exchange, in my mind, is the seeming betrayal done by a friend, not the words. To me it's the same as the punch in the face. It's just a punch, the meaning behind the action carries more weight.
İmage
 
Reply
#9
 x 0 


Sorry to double post, but I thought this deserved to be divorced from my last point. There's a moral subpoint here that we've all kind of touched on, but haven't really applied evenly to all the people in play, and I think that's quite telling about how we're approaching the scenario. It was Selly bashing the mother who put it together for me (The nature of the mother in the puzzle was bugging me. It seemed to me, by far, that she was the most clear cut answer). 

An element I'd argue we're not quite exploring fully is the nature of different relationship type and the way they should present themselves. This is why Selly found issue with the mother when I didn't - because I was considering her as a setpiece, not as a mother with all the responsibility that the title carries. Now, I'm at worl on my phone, so I'll finish this thought later.
İmage
 
Reply
#10
 x 0 


(25-03-2016, 09:20 PM)Selegraphon Wrote: The problem with morals is that they are entirely personal. In my opinion, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about sex (and for that matter, drugs, even as hard as methamphetamine. Death cults are an entirely different issue however...), and such it follows that a transaction involving sex (in a vacuum) is likewise just as intrinsically not immoral.

I guess the main area where our opinions differ is whether he is taking advantage of her. As I reasoned above, he was not, because it seemed to me as if he didn't know her or her particular situation. However, I guess it would be similarly easy to argue that he was taking advantage of her because of the floods (like some form of perverted Noah), regardless of whether he knew her or not. Then again, maybe that was his usual rate.

Abigale sleeps with Sinbad in desperation. Sinbad insists that she sleep with him, instead of charging money like a normal person. 
The issue I take is that Sinbad is in a position of power and will only accept only sweet sex as payment. If he was a businessman, then he could negotiate for something else. He just wants sex. He should charge a monetary fee and then hire a sex worker, and then his boat riding clients don't need to be put in compromising situation.

(26-03-2016, 03:38 AM)Jargonion-Bonus round for John: Wrote: Physical abuse also isn't inherently worse than verbal or mental abuse. A smack to the head's about as bad as a really good feelings hurt. There'll be no lasting effects, just a wound to get over and then it's all forgotten about. Yeah, you can seriously hurt or kill someone with physical abuse, but that's a spectrum, not a straight value. You can also do some really, really nasty verbal and mental stuff to people as well. Morally, although I don't go about beating people up, I think the low end of the physical violence spectrum is really as harmful as some of the non-physical shit people do to each other.

Imagine John called Tom a cunt-faced rat. The nasty part of the exchange, in my mind, is the seeming betrayal done by a friend, not the words. To me it's the same as the punch in the face. It's just a punch, the meaning behind the action carries more weight.

interesting point.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)