Emhyr - The Game Non-Character vs the Book.

[luc0s]

Actually, not necessarily. It all depends on a definition. Pain and suffering are not subjective. Pain hurts, you know, and it is something that people are trying to avoid. You can go all biological here, and still get a good working definition.

Here I am going to incur some wraith, I believe, but marrying and impregnating one's daughter is not a horrible act in itself. We may consider incest disgusting, but disgust is not a basis for morality. If two consenting adults who are closely biologically related, emgage in sexual relations, I do not see anything evil here.

Ciri did not want Emhyr. Period. It had nothing to do with him being her father. If he were to go through, father or not, it would be irrelevant. The same shit as with Henselt and Ves, no better, no worse.

No, you're wrong, good/evil and moral/immoral are ALWAYS going to be subjective, no matter what.

You might think Emhyr wanting to force his own daughter into an incestial marriage is morally wrong (and I'd agree with you) but to Emhyr it's a necessary evil that has to be done for the greater good.

We might not agree with Emhyr, but that doesn't make Emhyr's reasoning objectively wrong.

"Objective morality" is a myth that isn't backed up by science. It's something many religious people believe in but it's not grounded in truth.

 

[Phinnway]

@luc0sThere is a contradiction in your post.

You might think... [snip] ...is morally wrong, but to Emhyr it's... [snip] ... evil

You claim there is no such thing as objective morality, and use Emhyr marrying his daughter as an example. But then you go on to say Emhyr believes marrying his daughter is a morally evil act.....
.....
.....

"Objective morality" is a myth that isn't backed up by science.

There are many things we depend on every day that aren't backed up by science. There isn't a single law in the world that's scientifically variable. But we depend on them for society to function properly. Without a functionioning society, we would still be living in the stone-age and killing each other over food.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

No, you're wrong, good/evil and moral/immoral are ALWAYS going to be subjective, no matter what.

That is something I simply can't take your word for it. I would prefer to see some philosophical argument, with all true premises, and a conclusion that actually follows. It would have to deal with the meaning of "good", "evil", "morally permissible", "obligatory", etc.

You might think Emhyr wanting to force his own daughter into an incestial marriage is morally wrong (and I'd agree with you) but to Emhyr it's a necessary evil that has to be done for the greater good.

Actually, it is exactly the opposite of what I claim. What I said that Emhyr being her father is completely irrelevant to moral evaluation. It is concent that matters, not a matter of DNA.

We might not agree with Emhyr, but that doesn't make Emhyr's reasoning objectively wrong.

What reasoning are you talking here? Also, even if we accept that something is wrong, doing it still may be morally permissible because of some good justification. So everything depends whether we accept Emhyr's justification for his actions and his future plans.

"Objective morality" is a myth that isn't backed up by science. It's something many religious people believe in but it's not grounded in truth.

Science has nothing to do with morality Science deals with questions about "what is a case" (objective questions), and not with "what should be the case" (normative questions). Whether normative questions are actually pseudo-question is something that should require A LOT OF PHILOSOPHICAL WORK to defend, and simply can't be decided withing sciences.

Good source of knowledge:
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415803888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435793178&sr=8-1&keywords=contemporary+introduction+to+ethics
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0415891779/ref=pd_sim_14_12?ie=UTF8&refRID=1C2R3DX7XWSJHJ3YE888

 

[Phinnway]

Also, even if we accept that something is wrong, doing it still may be morally permissible because of some good justification

Which is exactly the argument Emhyr makes in the book.

“The end justifies the means,” the Emperor said flatly. “I do it for the future of the world. For its salvation.”

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Well, actually, if the end goal is not worth achieving, it does not justify anything. Here all depends what Emhyr's goal is. If him (and only him) having a child with Ciri is the only means to stop the White Frost, and save the world, and without him doing it the world would perish, he is perfectly warranted to do so. In this case it may be even obligatory as Ciri's pain and suffering would be simply miniscule in comparison with pain and suffering of the entire world. It is like shooting off a plane with a bunch of innocent passengers because if it crashes, it will kill thousand times more in some urban area. Nobody claims that shooting plains is good, but sometimes it is necessary.

But the thing is Emhyr is wrong, and there are other ways to achieve the same goal. But something tells me he would order to decapitate me before we finish our discussion.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

You know, I'm tipsy and yet I still don't find a point in arguing about this point. But I am going to do it anyways because little inhibitions.

I'm a moral nihilist myself, so I don't believe in "good" and "evil", but as a social animal I believe in rules necessary to maintain a society and ensure mutual aid, in the words of Kropotkin, because that has been the reason why we as a species survived and thrived, as Darwin and others have argued. And as far as I know, there is not a single species where parent - child incest is performed (but plenty of sibling incest). So while I would not use qualifiers as "good" and "evil", I would certainly say that on an objective level, parent - child incest is fundamentally incompatible with all forms of society on this planet on both an anthropological and biological level, shared amongst humans and animals alike (as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong). And evidently, with regards to sibling incest, we have biology to also show that on an objective level, it's a horrible idea as far as giving birth to children is concerned.

SO, based on everything I know, Emhyr was a jackass to even entertain the thought.

Forgive me if I mispell or don't make sense, as I am slightly drunk as I am typing this.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Nobody claims that shooting plains is good, but sometimes it is necessary.

Wait, wait, wait...

This is HIGHLY debatable. I'd say you have no right at all to shoot plains no matter what. You have no right at all to decide on another persons life if the person hasn't done you or society any wrong.

It's basically the old question: would you kill one innocent person in order to save two other innocent persons? Would you kill one person to save 10? 100? 1000? 1.000.000? The whole world?

The point is that the actual number is completely irrelevant. From an enthical point of view killing one guy is always wrong no matter how many people you could safe by doing so. It doesn't matter. The end doesn't justify the means. It's one of the biggest fallacies of humanity to think that the end could justify the means. It can't. Many of the most evil people on earth started with this mindset. It's the easiest way to the "dark side of the force". It's basically what is meant with the old saying: "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

So no, shooting plaines is never necessary. If you do so you act against humanity and you become "evil" yourself no matter if you saved anybody or not.

 

[Willowhugger]

I find both Utilitarianism and the Absolute Imperative flawed concepts.

"Would you kill one person to save another?"

"Yes."

"Doesn't that make you evil?"

"No."

"What if they were innocent?"

"Then yes."

"To save the world."

"Then no."

"And who decides this?"

My answer?

"I do."

Part of why I didn't want to get into an argument over the words "Objectively Terrible" is I believe morality exists entirely within our minds (and God's--depending on your religious beliefs). However, that's the thing. I'm an EXISTENTIALIST. That means that everything exists within our minds. As such, value judgements are entirely made within our minds and that makes them no less real than anything else because our reality is defined by our experiences.

Which is probably complete nonsense to a lot of people here but is deeply meaningful to me.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

So no, shooting plaines is never necessary. If you do so you act against humanity and you become "evil" yourself no matter if you saved anybody or not.

Even if this plane carries a nuclear device, and will go off over New York killing hundreds of thousands? If you shut it down, the bomb will go off over the Atlantic, and only the passengers will die. By the way, the passengers will die anyway, whether you shoot the plane or not. So you are saying, you'll just watch the show without doing anything because you do not want to violate some abstract principle? Well, this is probably something most people would disagree. I know I would. I would always prefer to save the lives of real people over a preservation of some principle.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I find both Utilitarianism and the Absolute Imperative flawed concepts.

Utilitarianism is a confused philosophy that on one hand claims to be hedonist at the basis, and yet ascribes different values to pleasures one can experience, thus contradicting itself entirely.
As for the categorical imperative, Kant and other deontologists can go fuck themselves. They commit, as Moore would put it, the "naturalistic fallacy."

Since nihilism and existentialism are close, the latter being something of an off shoot of the former, I suppose a high five is in order.

 

[Willowhugger]

To bring this back to discussing Emhyr, I think Emhyr can be put in the best category of villain which is that they satisfy two rules:

1. They can convince themselves they are the hero in their own narrative.
2. They can coherently explain their perspective and goals.

To compare Emhyr to a favorite character of mine, I think he's very similar to Bester on Babylon Five who was a character who was undeniably evil to me as an audience member. He was based on the Gestapo, after all, he tortured and killed and kidnapped and murdered. However, Bester was an extremely effective character because all of his actions were perfectly rationale from his perspective: To protect the Psi-Corps and (through it) what he perceived as the best interests of psychics everwhere.

So much so many people didn't think Bester was a "villain" at all because they didn't associate that word with people who were three-dimensional characters who could explain themselves.

In the case of Emhyr, everything he does can be explained in the context of either trying to protect his dynasty, protect Nilfgaard, and protect the world as a whole. This includes his plans to do something unconscionable. From Emhyr's OWN morality, which is "results over everything", he believes that sparing Ciri from their marriage is a FAILURE on his part rather than the most decent thing he could have done.

Emhyr can and does explain himself and Geralt doesn't bother to engage him on his level. To Geralt, this is not something worth debating over. Emhyr's actions are unforgivable and monstrous but he'll never see that so....why bother talking to him about it?

Part of the problem of the game is that Emhyr and Geralt really can't engage in any form of real dialogue.

Emhyr commands.

Geralt sneers or obeys.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Emhyr can and does explain himself and Geralt doesn't bother to engage him on his level. To Geralt, this is not something worth debating over. Emhyr's actions are unforgivable and monstrous but he'll never see that so....why bother talking to him about it?

What actions are you talking about? Concerning Ciri he had intentions, but he never acted on them, so there was nothing to forgive.

 

[Willowhugger]

Utilitarianism is a confused philosophy that on one hand claims to be hedonist at the basis, and yet ascribes different values to pleasures one can experience, thus contradicting itself entirely.
As for the categorical imperative, Kant and other deontologists can go fuck themselves. They commit, as Moore would put it, the "naturalistic fallacy."

Since nihilism and existentialism are close, the latter being something of an off shoot from the former, I suppose a high five is in order.

It's kind of a different step in the point.

1. Nihilism: The universe has no inherent meaning.
2. Existentialism: So we must create one.

Then again, I'm a Christian Existentialist, which is kind of a hoop-jumping nonsensical combination but works for me.

"God exists and is good. But we have freedom to impose our own meanings as rational beings on the cosmos."

In short, we are divine ourselves by the very divinity of the mind's ability to draw meaning from a meaningless chaos.

Even if that chaos was created with meaning, that is simply an expression of the above.

Okay, now I'm talking hoops. Ignore me.

 

[Willowhugger]

What actions are you talking about? Concerning Ciri he had intentions, but he never acted on them, so there was nothing to forgive.

I think Cintra would beg to differ.



As would Geralt's dead friends.

Geralt wants Emhyr dead in the finale of the book. He can't beat him and he's beaten but his final status to the man is one of contempt and contemptibility.

Emhyr may rule the entire world but he'll never have Geralt's respect.

He's just a rogue with a crown.

Which infuriates Emhyr I think.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Well, concerning theoretic ethics, we can label ourselves any way we want. Neither utilitarianism, nor deontology got it right. But we are talking about applied, practical ethics here, and about making moral choices in real situations. For me it is obvious that Emhyr labored under a big misconception, but he eventually saw reason, and did not go through with his plan. As simple as that.

I think Cintra would beg to differ.



As would Geralt's dead friends.

Geralt wants Emhyr dead in the finale of the book. He can't beat him and he's beaten but his final status to the man is one of contempt and contemptibility.

Emhyr may rule the entire world but he'll never have Geralt's respect.

He's just a rogue with a crown.

Which infuriates Emhyr I think.

Well, Emhyr was not the only one. We had other bad people after Ciri, well worse than Emhyr.
Rogue with a crown? Ain't they all? About Grealt's respect: well, I am sure Emhyr can live without it. It is not like he is lacking self-confidence and requires Geralt's approval or something.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's kind of a different step in the point.

1. Nihilism: The universe has no inherent meaning.
2. Existentialism: So we must create one.

Then again, I'm a Christian Existentialist, which is kind of a hoop-jumping nonsensical combination but works for me.

The reason why I can't believe in existence preceding essence, is because at the end of the day, I'm a determinist. But that's a long story.

But I do find your position interesting, and more often then not, I tend to sympathize with existentialists and agree on many issues.

---------- Updated at 04:37 AM ----------

Well, concerning theoretic ethics, we can label ourselves any way we want. Neither utilitarianism, nor deontology got it right. But we are talking about applied, practical ethics here, and about making moral choices in real situations. For me it is obvious that Emhyr labored under a big misconception, but he eventually saw reason, and did not go through with his plan. As simple as that.

I agree that as social animals, we need rules to maintain our societies, whether one calls it practical ethics, morality, rules,common sense or what have you. And in my view, Emhyr entertained an act that goes contrary to most forms of society on the planet (certainly all mammal ones unless I missed something). Him seeing reason does not give him cookies in my eyes.

EDIT: though I suppose I might be too harsh. Murder also runs contrary to most forms of society on the planet. I guess we've been so desensitized to it. Goes to show the sad state our species has reached really.

EDIT 2: anyways, I should stop philosophizing while drunk and get some sleep.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

And in my view, Emhyr entertained an act that goes contrary to most forms of society on the planet (certainly all mammal ones unless I missed something).

You mean incest? Well, it is always fan to ask students to explain why they believe (or how they know) that incest (a sex with someone who just has a lot of DNA in common) is morally wrong. But it is way off topic.
For me I do not care for it if Ciri, for example, was so much into her dad that she wanted to jump his bones. It is him forcing her I found wrong. He was no worse than any of these people who were after her for exactly the same reason as he was.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

You mean incest? Well, it is always fan to ask students to explain why they believe (or how they know) that incest (just having a lot of DNA in common) is morally wrong. But it is way off topic.

I didn't say morally. I said no species that I know of on the planet does it (parent-child incest), and if there was one, they probably got extinct because it's a horrible idea. It's not so much a moral imperative as a biological one. As such, having rules against it makes perfect sense and should be there.

But yes, the fact that he wanted to rape her doesn't make it better at all, of course.

 

[CostinRaz]

But yes, the fact that he wanted to rape her doesn't make it better at all, of course.

I'd point out that he's doing it to save the world. It's not like he's happy about committing incest, the whole rape argument is irrelevant in a world with arranged marriages, even if they are against the will of girls, and indeed the fact he let Ciri go shows the fact he wasn't a big fan of what he t do.

Now some will argue that Emhyr didn't need to do this to place Ciri's son on throne, well besides the political issues he would have to deal with if he revealed he was Duny Emhyr himself mentions that the prophecy requires him to do it. Whether or not this is true is arguable but that's how Emhyr feels. Also Ithlinne is known to have predicted a good number of things correctly: Like the Northern Wars and the Plague outbreaks.

Now one might rightly argue he's a jackass. Well so was Radovid in TW2 or Henselt, doesn't make them any less competent as rulers and when the whole damned world is at stake I'd say fuck any notion of morality or moral principles.

 

[luc0s]

You know, I'm tipsy and yet I still don't find a point in arguing about this point. But I am going to do it anyways because little inhibitions.

I'm a moral nihilist myself, so I don't believe in "good" and "evil", but as a social animal I believe in rules necessary to maintain a society and ensure mutual aid, in the words of Kropotkin, because that has been the reason why we as a species survived and thrived, as Darwin and others have argued. And as far as I know, there is not a single species where parent - child incest is performed (but plenty of sibling incest). So while I would not use qualifiers as "good" and "evil", I would certainly say that on an objective level, parent - child incest is fundamentally incompatible with all forms of society on this planet on both an anthropological and biological level, shared amongst humans and animals alike (as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong). And evidently, with regards to sibling incest, we have biology to also show that on an objective level, it's a horrible idea as far as giving birth to children is concerned.

SO, based on everything I know, Emhyr was a jackass to even entertain the thought.

Forgive me if I mispell or don't make sense, as I am slightly drunk as I am typing this.

Okay, I will correct you, because you are wrong. There are many species where parent-child incest happens and humans aren't even excluded from that list.

A lot of rodents try to fuck their own mother when they come of age. This is the reason why rodent mothers often abandon their children at a certain point, to avoid getting knocked up by her own children. So I guess you could argue that at least the mother understands that getting knocked up by her own kids is not the best idea, but it could also just be hardwired in the mother's brain to abandon her children at one point without even knowing why (the latter seems more likely to me).

Birds do the same thing. Birds in captivity are known for having incest, all kinds of incest, including children knocking up their own parents, and parents knocking up their own children. Birds in the wild often avoid incest by chasing off their male children and forcing them to join another flock.

This is all besides the point though. I mean you would be completely right if Emhyr just wanted to knock Ciri up for selfish reasons, except he doesn't. He wanted to knock up Ciri because he believes it's necessary to save the world. That makes the entire thing morally grey and you can't just say that Emhyr is objectively horrible for wanting to knock up his daughter, even if knocking up your daughter is normally considered an objectively bad thing.