Worm and Ward discussion and debate thread

You're still doing the EXACT SAME THING. Your just saying, 'nope, law is right because law' and ignoring the circumstances. Circumstances always influence decisions and you continue to insist that I'm wrong for no actual reason other than you say I'm wrong. Which isn't true. There are plenty of situations where it is not morally wrong to break the law. You keep insisting that's not true. So I'm going to pose a moral dilemma that my first, and best in my opinion, ethics professor gave me.

A man has a wife who is sick with a very rare fatal illness. He can purchase a medicine that will save her life from a local pharmacy. However, the man is poor and cannot afford the medicine. The pharmacist cannot afford to sell him the medicine for less money since he also can't afford to lose money on it. However, the man sees an opportunity to steal the medicine and save his wife's life. So what is morally right? Should the man break the law and save his wife's life, or should he not break the law but allow his wife to die? What is more important, human life or the rule of law? And for the sake of the argument, the pharmacist cannot agree to give the man the medicine for an affordable price or for free. The two options I've provided are the only options. And I understand that you're going to say, 'human life is a different case' but I'm attempting to establish the point that it can be morally right to break the law.

----------------------

Another related argument because I have a thought. It's time for Ethics 102 with your returning lecturer Professor Kamen.

The concept of social contract theory is a very old, but very intrinsic part of moral reasoning. The basic concept can be summarized by saying that a person's moral and political obligations are defined by a 'contract' or unwritten agreement that they have with the society in which they live. In turn, society promises that they will receive the benefits of membership: protection from harm, fair treatment under law, and all rights defined as part of the society. This can also be applied on an interpersonal level, with agreements between two people being a more personal form of the same agreement. So a promise is essentially the same kind of contract, just between two people instead of one person and society as a whole. So by being a member of a society (in Taylor's case, being part of American society), she has the obligation to follow their rules and laws and in exchange society has the obligation to treat her fairly and keep her safe from harm.

However, in the case of the bank robbery, Taylor is in two social contracts. One to society as a whole and one to the Undersiders as a group. Except for one thing. Society has already violated their side of the contract with Taylor. For Taylor to have a responsibility to society to follow its laws, society has to fulfill it's obligation to keep her safe. The thing is, it hasn't. In fact, society is actively breaking the contract because the corruption of authority has actively harmed her. Because the PRT's corruption has allowed Sophia to repeatedly attack her, harm her, and ultimately almost kill her. Even if Taylor is unaware of this, is she obligated to fulfill her half of a contract that has already been invalidated by the other party actively refusing to uphold their half of the contract? And in that case, why is it wrong to uphold the contract where the other party has upheld their end of the deal?

 

Stealing is still wrong. The moral thing would be to not steal the medicine.

Having a shitty life doesn't give you the right to break the law.

Except that's never worked in history. There's a reason we have codified laws. Because trust alone isn't enough to build a civilization. You need defined boundaries of what behavior is or isn't acceptable and to hold everyone to that standard.

Wha? Where did the truce come in? What are you even talking about?

 

So you'd rather an innocent human being die than steal something. Good to know. I think that says a lot about you.

So if society is corrupt and actively hurting you, it is morally right to take it and suffer, no matter what happens to you and even to the point of dying because of it. Wonderful. Do I need to point out why that makes you sound awful?

 

No but being a bully victim isn't a free pass to just do what ever you want. By your logic the Merchants were totally justified in selling drugs to children because society failed to provide a strong enough safety net for them and they shouldn't be judged for trying to make money.

 

It is not society's responsibility to coddle everyone and give them a good life. It is society's responsibility to provide everyone with basic safety and protection from harm, something that it didn't do for Taylor. There's also no evidence that the Merchants leaders, the ones allowing the group to function, were actively harmed by society. Note the term actively hurting in my original post. There's a difference between lacking the skills to make money and a government agent physically assaulting you on a regular basis.

 

Except none of the government agents knew about Sophia's actions and would have stepped in to stop them if they knew. By your logic if a cop is an abusive father his kids have a right to break the law as they wish, even if the cop's abuse is unknown to anyone.

 

Sophia had a PRT handler who is supposed to keep an eye on her, especially since she has a history of violence. It is suppose to be her responsibility to know if Sophia is doing something illegal, like felony assault. The PRT had a responsibility that it failed to complete.

 

No the Endbringer Truce is a truce. Not a promise. That's why characters who are ignorant of it are still beholden to it. Taylor doesn't know about the Truce's finer points but her getting up and finding Sophia is still a violation. What's more since it's not an individual promise but a codified form of ethics by your logic if Taylor promised to help Lisa with something and that something was to break the truce by your logic the moral thing would be to help Lisa break the truce.

Ignorance isn't the same as a failure. The handler likely got reports from her teachers and principal which stated she was a model student since Sophia did put some effort into covering shit up. It's still wouldn't give Taylor a blank check to break the law unless the PRT was actively aiding in and covering up her bullying. Which it wasn't. At all.

 

Except that her responsibility is to have knowledge. Literally the only way she can fail is to be ignorant of what she's supposed to know. And the school authorities are also part of society that is supposed to be providing her with basic safety. If they are actively covering up for Sophia, they are actively harming her. The PRT is one part of society, but ALL authority figures involved are responsible for maintaining that safety.

 

I'm still not sure how this translates into Taylor having a free pass to rob a bank.

 

It essentially comes around to the point that the agreement with the Undersiders is more valid than the one with a society that has repeatedly failed her.

 

Except it doesn't work like that. If society has failed you you don't just get a free pass to ignore the rule of law. You're still bound to act in a lawful and moral manner. If Taylor doesn't want to obey a society that she thinks hasn't held up its end than the solution isn't to break said society's laws. It's to leave that society.

 

You're still using 'lawful and moral' as if they're synonyms. Repeat after me. Again. Since you keep doing this when it's not true. Lawful does not equal moral. She is acting in an UNLAWFUL way by stealing, but still acting in a MORAL way because she is displaying moral traits, loyalty. That's something you keep ignoring.

And yeah, remember the part where she essentially takes over Brockton Bay and establishes her own order? Yeah, she does leave the society that failed her and make her own.

 

Because stealing is also an immoral act. So she's displaying the trait of loyalty to an immoral cause, and acting in an immoral way.

And remember the part where she realized such a society would be unstable and attempts to restore the old order?

 

Except stealing is less immoral than disloyalty. What the loyalty is to is irrelevant.

Except that entire plot point is a forced and ham handed way for Wildbow to push Taylor into joining the Protectorate because 'plot'. That's an excuse he pulled out of thin air and supported with his creator's pet character Dinah.

 

I disagree.

Or he realized that 5 teenagers with no experience couldn't realistically hope to run a city if the government well and truly pulled out.

 

I can't argue that because we're never going to be able to settle that point.

They had already liberated all of Coil's assets and recruited his entire support staff. They had total access to all the resources necessary to run a city because Coil already did and Tattletale took everything when they managed to kill him. They had men, resources, and they had plenty of experience because they'd just spend months running their territories and helping rebuild after Leviathan's attack. Remember, Coil's entire plan calls for them to flee Brockton so he can make a show of being the best PRT director for the city then individually take over other neighboring cities, essentially becoming vassal states to his capitol in Brockton Bay. Coil's plan outright requires them to be able to run a city, so he arranged for them to run their territories so they could practice and learn.

 

The issue is that modern cities simply aren't built to be run like fiefdoms. It doesn't matter that they had all the tension killing infinite money and manpower of Coil because if they wanted to the US government could strangle BB. They could cut off power given that the city relies on the grid to work. They could bar any traffic in or out of the city. Thus no food. Hell they could just refuse to give any tax dollars to the city. The Undersiders were rich but even a billion dollars would be nowhere near enough to afford all the civil services a modern city requires. At a certain point their ability to maintain their power would erode. The only reason they had any in the first place was basically authorial fiat.

 

Coil had billions of dollars because he ran Fortress Construction. The only company in the world that makes Endbringer shelters, something that everyone absolutely needs when there are living embodiments of the apocalypse are walking around nuking major cities every few months. Coil was filthy rich because he was the only guy in the country providing something that every single person needs. If the US government wants to explain to their population why they're decommissioning the Endbringer shelters and leaving millions of people at risk from their attacks, then they can do whatever they want. The thing is, that's a terrible idea.

Also, you're forgetting one thing. Cauldron. Cauldron wants parahuman run fiefdoms because it's necessary to their post-Scion apocalypse plans. And they have the political control and backing to prevent the government from intervening enough to stop them.

 

Fanon. He worked for them but it's never said he owns or runs it.

Cite.

Given the The Undersiders aren't running it anyway I don't see how it matters.

 

It's never specified. But consider Coil's character. Would he ever accept any position other than the leader? He's a text book example of a megalomaniac.

Again, never specified one way or the other, but inferred from context. Endbringer shelters are only discussed in terms of Fortress and Coil is absurdly rich.

I concede this point. You still haven't explained why Cauldron wouldn't interfere in the Undersider's favor if the Undersiders are fulfilling their plan for them, without even asking for anything for it because the Undersiders don't know they exist yet.

 

He owns the company, but they don't build all of the shelters.

 

I mean they could be. I'd think they'd prefer people they had leverage on, but whatever.

 

That's always bugged me in canon. Why not just send Contessa and have her say 'hey we were Coil's backers, but you proved he was shit as his job. We'll keep the government off your back, just keep doing exactly what you're doing'? She's as capable socially as she is physically and she's able to take down the entire Chicago Wards in seconds. Her power is (as annoying as it makes her) to be good at everything.

 

Her power is to win, being good at everything is a side effect if the path requires it.

Sorry to inturpt, just wanted to say I am glad this thread is being used and you guys aren't tearing each others heads off like I feared when I first made this thread. Carry on.

 

Because as you pointed out the plot needed Taylor to join the heroes. Plus having Contessa show up would rob the story of what little tension there was. Also IIRC Cauldron thought the Undersiders were planing on using the info they had to try and expose them.

 

But if the only reason is 'because plot' that's not good writing and should be questioned. And there was already no tension in the story. We already know Taylor's going to come out of anything that happens to her fine, so there's no reason to worry about anything that happens to her. Besides, lack of government interference doesn't prevent other gangs from trying to usurp them. The Butcher could have been an amazing long term villain, acting as a rival warlord, but she gets bumped off something like two story arcs after her first appearance. And wouldn't getting the Undersiders on their side be more productive in the long run than fighting them and being exposed anyway?