# Moral Dilemma



## Esmeralda

What's your opinion?

"The drawbridge"

As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.

The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.

After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.

Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'

The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.

Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'

With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.

In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?

Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.

Ranking 
Baron
Baroness
Gateman
Lover
Boatman
Friend


----------



## syrenn

The barron is an asshole for threatening his wife and keeping her in a prison. 

The baroness is an idiot for staying with an asshole who threatens her and for not flat out leaving his sorry ass. Also has very bad taste in men.... 

The gateman was doing his job.... he warned her and she did not take the warning.  

The lover is just your typical man whore out for a good time.

the boatman had is price and stuck to it.

the friend is no friend. She should have said "good for you for leaving is sorry ass, stay here with me." Good for her for not giving her money to return to an abusive husband.


----------



## Sunshine

Esmeralda said:


> What's your opinion?
> 
> "The drawbridge"
> 
> As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.
> 
> The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.
> 
> After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.
> 
> Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'
> 
> The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.
> 
> Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'
> 
> With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.
> 
> In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?
> 
> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.
> 
> Ranking
> Baron
> Baroness
> Gateman
> Lover
> Boatman
> Friend



She is responsible.  She made her own choices.


----------



## syrenn

Sunshine said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> "The drawbridge"
> 
> As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.
> 
> The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.
> 
> After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.
> 
> Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'
> 
> The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.
> 
> Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'
> 
> With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.
> 
> In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?
> 
> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.
> 
> Ranking
> Baron
> Baroness
> Gateman
> Lover
> Boatman
> Friend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is responsible.  She made her own choices.
Click to expand...


agreed...and all of them bad choices from the start.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Baron-6
Baroness-5
Friend-4
Lover-3
Gateman-2
Boatman-1


----------



## Esmeralda

So far very interesting. I think you are harsh on the Baroness.  She made bad choices, but is she so unethical and foolish she deserves to die?


----------



## syrenn

Esmeralda said:


> So far very interesting. I think you are harsh on the Baroness.  She made bad choices, but is she so unethical and foolish she deserves to die?



yes..i get what the "story is trying to get at" 

it has nothing to do with what she deserves or if she deserved to die. ..... it is about choices and the consequences of those choices. 

she chose to cross the bridge...where she was _clearly_ warned that if she tired she would be killed...

she tried and got killed.... her choice. 


Then there is the whole angle of ... "helping your fellow man"


----------



## BlackSand

Esmeralda said:


> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.
> 
> Ranking
> Baron
> Baroness
> Gateman
> Lover
> Boatman
> Friend



6 - Gateman
5 - Baroness
4 - Baron
3 - Lover
2 - Friend
1 - Boatman

What is the Dilemma?

.


----------



## realinvestment

My wife wouldn't think twice about killing me if I had an affair, so it's understandable how the Baron acted.


----------



## Esmeralda

The penality for infidelity is death?


----------



## syrenn

Esmeralda said:


> The penality for infidelity is death?



according to sharia law..... yes.


----------



## Esmeralda

LOL  Well, I think the point of the 'exercise' here is to determine your personal perspective.  

It is a lesson in ethics: not to teach any specific ethics, but to discuss ethics, what any individual would determine based on his/her own personal ethical position.  Though I think infedility is wrong, I don't think it is serious enough to result in death.  So, I think the Baron is the worst because he essentially gave his wife the death penalty for being unfaithful. In fact, she could have left the castle w/o going to a lover. And he was also unethical for essentially locking  her in the house. If a modern day man locked his wife up when he went away, that would be considered domestic abuse.  If he had killed when she tried to sneak back in the house, he'd be on trial for murder.  He is the main one responsible for her death.

I think the friend and lover are next responsible. The lover is completely amoral; he doesn't care at all what happens to her.  He has just used her for sex.

The friend should have helped because a true friend is loyal, even if she disagrees with her friend's behavior. 

Ethically, the baroness was wrong for being unfaithful, so I put her in the middle as far as responsible for her death. But I don't think she was wrong for leaving the castle as she shouldn't have been 'locked up' in the first place.  

The gateman should have quit his job instead of killing the Baroness.  Ethically, though he too was doing his job, he should draw the line at murder.

The boatman was just doing his job, but he was culpable in her death, knowing she would die if he didn't help her.


Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.

Baron 6
Baroness 3
Gateman 2
Lover 5
Boatman 1
Friend 4

This is all my opinion, of course.  The point is to determine who is most and least responsible for her death based on your own, personal ethics.  It's just an issue of thinking about what you believe and why.


----------



## Connery

The more a person is oppressed the more they will repel that oppression. The human spirit cannot be crushed. The baroness made bad choices but the whole series of events is responsible  the system that placed each member of this situation and compelled them to act in a way which allowed the station to worsen is the major cause.


----------



## Esmeralda

Connery said:


> The more a person is oppressed the more they will repel that oppression. The human spirit cannot be crushed. The baroness made bad choices but the whole series of events is responsible  the system that placed each member of this situation and compelled them to act in a way which allowed the station to worsen is the major cause.



Okay.  That's a good point.  But, even though that may be the case, is not one person in this little story more or less ethical than another?


----------



## Connery

Esmeralda said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more a person is oppressed the more they will repel that oppression. The human spirit cannot be crushed. The baroness made bad choices but the whole series of events is responsible  the system that placed each member of this situation and compelled them to act in a way which allowed the station to worsen is the major cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's a good point.  But, even though that may be the case, is not one person in this little story more or less ethical than another?
Click to expand...


Ethical......those who acted with fidelity to their duties and the promise to carry out those duties. The wife who was with her lover got herself in a bad place because she was not "ethical" her lover should have done the right thing and made sure the baroness got home safely.


----------



## Esmeralda

Connery said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more a person is oppressed the more they will repel that oppression. The human spirit cannot be crushed. The baroness made bad choices but the whole series of events is responsible  the system that placed each member of this situation and compelled them to act in a way which allowed the station to worsen is the major cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's a good point.  But, even though that may be the case, is not one person in this little story more or less ethical than another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ethical......those who acted with fidelity to their duties and the promise to carry out those duties. The wife who was with her lover got herself in a bad place because she was not "ethical" her lover should have done the right thing and made sure the baroness got home safely.
Click to expand...


What about the friend?  Is a friend ethically someone who will support you, even though you may be doing something he/she disagrees with? Her friend did nothing to help her, knowing it could end in death for the baroness.


----------



## syrenn

Esmeralda said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's a good point.  But, even though that may be the case, is not one person in this little story more or less ethical than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ethical......those who acted with fidelity to their duties and the promise to carry out those duties. The wife who was with her lover got herself in a bad place because she was not "ethical" her lover should have done the right thing and made sure the baroness got home safely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the friend?  Is a friend ethically someone who will support you, even though you may be doing something he/she disagrees with? Her friend did nothing to help her, knowing it could end in death for the baroness.
Click to expand...


yes men and enablers....are not friends. 

the baroness did not have to go back.


----------



## Esmeralda

syrenn said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethical......those who acted with fidelity to their duties and the promise to carry out those duties. The wife who was with her lover got herself in a bad place because she was not "ethical" her lover should have done the right thing and made sure the baroness got home safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the friend?  Is a friend ethically someone who will support you, even though you may be doing something he/she disagrees with? Her friend did nothing to help her, knowing it could end in death for the baroness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes men and enablers....are not friends.
> 
> the baroness did not have to go back.
Click to expand...


That's true. She did not have to go back.  But is she solely responsible?  Because if her husband had not set it up for the Gateman to kill her if she tried to return home, she'd be alive. I still think he is most responsible because he set up a situation that if she left the castle, she would die if she tried to return.  Whatever reason she left the castle, unless it was to kill him or plot his death, she doesn't deserve to die if she tries to return.

Of course we could say she is thus stupid for leaving, for disobeying, but people disobey authoritarian rule all the time: does that mean they all deserve to die?


----------



## syrenn

Esmeralda said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the friend?  Is a friend ethically someone who will support you, even though you may be doing something he/she disagrees with? Her friend did nothing to help her, knowing it could end in death for the baroness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes men and enablers....are not friends.
> 
> the baroness did not have to go back.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true. She did not have to go back.  But is she solely responsible?  Because if her husband had not set it up for the Gateman to kill her if she tried to return home, she'd be alive. I still think he is most responsible because he set up a situation that if she left the castle, she would die if she tried to return.  Whatever reason she left the castle, unless it was to kill him or plot his death, she doesn't deserve to die if she tries to return.
Click to expand...


she is solely responsible for everything. 

she married him in the first place didnt she? 

if she left and never looked back....leaving an abusive husband.. it would not have mattered one bit if the barron had a million men there to cut her down.....  

She knew what would happen if she crossed the bridge.... she was warned what would happen... and she still did it. 

you deserve the consequences of your actions.... she knew_* before hand *_the consequences of her actions.


----------



## AVG-JOE

syrenn said:


> The barron is an asshole for threatening his wife and keeping her in a prison.
> 
> The baroness is an idiot for staying with an asshole who threatens her and for not flat out leaving his sorry ass. Also has very bad taste in men....
> 
> The gateman was doing his job.... he warned her and she did not take the warning.
> 
> The lover is just your typical man whore out for a good time.
> 
> the boatman had is price and stuck to it.
> 
> the friend is no friend. She should have said "good for you for leaving is sorry ass, stay here with me." Good for her for not giving her money to return to an abusive husband.



Characters in a melodrama don't kill people... knives kill people.





The knife is responsible.


----------



## AVG-JOE

The Gatesman should have been a responsible knife owner and refused the order given by the Royal Dick.


----------



## syrenn

AVG-JOE said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The barron is an asshole for threatening his wife and keeping her in a prison.
> 
> The baroness is an idiot for staying with an asshole who threatens her and for not flat out leaving his sorry ass. Also has very bad taste in men....
> 
> The gateman was doing his job.... he warned her and she did not take the warning.
> 
> The lover is just your typical man whore out for a good time.
> 
> the boatman had is price and stuck to it.
> 
> the friend is no friend. She should have said "good for you for leaving is sorry ass, stay here with me." Good for her for not giving her money to return to an abusive husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Characters in a melodrama don't kill people... knives kill people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The knife is responsible.
Click to expand...


it would all depend on if the prop man checks the weapons.


----------



## Gracie

One person is responsible for all that happened. The baroness. Her choice to marry the baron in the first place. Her choice to allow to continue what happened during their marriage (people only do to you what you LET them do to you). Her choice to go see a lover (which the baron probably knew about and wanted to put a stop to it...which means she was unfaithful at least once. Maybe more than one "lover" was involved). She chose to go regardless of the warning. Her choice to return and denied. Her choice to involve outsiders. Her choice to put her friend in a spot. Her choice to go back and get her ass killed.

So in answer to the questions....only one person. The baroness.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Maybe the community is at fault for allowing the Baron to enforce such a barbaric order.... 

Why was the Gateman not prosecuted?


----------



## Esmeralda

I think it is interesting that women are harder on the baronesss than the men are.  Why is that, do you think?


----------



## AVG-JOE

`​


Same reason we're all hard on the stupid kid who *opens the fucking door* in a 'B' Horror Movie.



`​


----------



## AVG-JOE

No sympathy for self inflected wounds.


----------



## Sarah G

Baroness - For even being with such a vicious man, she must have known.

Baron - For ordering the gateman to kill her.

Gateman - For following orders and killing her.

Lover - For being cowardly.

Boatman - For not taking her across just to help.

Friend  - For not being a loyal friend.


----------



## Barb

1 Society, for it's patriarchal bullshit paradigm 



> 'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,'


----------



## Barb

Gracie said:


> One person is responsible for all that happened. The baroness. Her choice to marry the baron in the first place. Her choice to allow to continue what happened during their marriage (people only do to you what you LET them do to you). Her choice to go see a lover (which the baron probably knew about and wanted to put a stop to it...which means she was unfaithful at least once. Maybe more than one "lover" was involved). She chose to go regardless of the warning. Her choice to return and denied. Her choice to involve outsiders. Her choice to put her friend in a spot. Her choice to go back and get her ass killed.
> 
> So in answer to the questions....only one person. The baroness.



Back in the days of baronesses, boatmen, and gate keepers, women HAD no choices in who they married, unless they managed to run away, in which case employment opportunities were limited as well, and often that choice was also made for women with no family protection.


----------



## Barb

Esmeralda said:


> I think it is interesting that women are harder on the baronesss than the men are.  Why is that, do you think?



Because many women still live under the patriarchal bullshit paradigm.


----------



## Peterf

Esmeralda said:


> The penality for infidelity is death?



Responders are not given the option of commenting on what the penlty, if any, for infidelity should be.


----------



## BlackSand

Esmeralda said:


> Okay.  That's a good point.  But, even though that may be the case, is not one person in this little story more or less ethical than another?



*Responsibility is not equally shared by everyone ... As it would be retarded to assist the Baroness in returning to her eventual death.*

The friend and the boatman are far less culpable than the others.
It would be stupid for the friend to assist the Baroness in returning to the Baron ... So refusing to give her money to return to a stupid situation is more ethical than assisting her death.
The boatman only wanted to be paid for services rendered ... And if she had not returned to the Baron after being warned what the consequences were she would still be alive.

The lover's only crime is having an affair with someone he knew was married ... And assisting the Baroness' return would not have served the Baroness in any way. 

The gateman is the most responsible for her death ... Because he killed her.
The Baron and Baroness are the only ones that share responsibility in as they are both conspirators ... Either to commit murder or infidelity.

*Still ... The people who refused the Baroness the ability to return to a dangerous situation were far less culpable than the others.*



Edit: There is nothing unethical about the boatman being paid for his services and feeding his family ... Plus he would have avoided putting the Baroness in any further danger.


.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Esmeralda said:


> What's your opinion?
> 
> "The drawbridge"
> 
> As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.
> 
> The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.
> 
> After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.
> 
> Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'
> 
> The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.
> 
> Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'
> 
> With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.
> 
> In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?
> 
> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.



6 = Gateman
5 = Baron
4 = Baroness
3 = Lover
2 = Boatman
1 = Friend


----------



## Esmeralda

Delta4Embassy said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> "The drawbridge"
> 
> As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.
> 
> The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.
> 
> After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.
> 
> Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'
> 
> The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.
> 
> Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'
> 
> With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.
> 
> In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?
> 
> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 = Gateman
> 5 = Baron
> 4 = Baroness
> 3 = Lover
> 2 = Boatman
> 1 = Friend
Click to expand...


Interesting choices. Care to give any reasons for your choices?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Esmeralda said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> "The drawbridge"
> 
> As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.
> 
> The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.
> 
> After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.
> 
> Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'
> 
> The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.
> 
> Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'
> 
> With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.
> 
> In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?
> 
> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 = Gateman
> 5 = Baron
> 4 = Baroness
> 3 = Lover
> 2 = Boatman
> 1 = Friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting choices. Care to give any reasons for your choices?
Click to expand...


Gateman actually carried out the deed. At Nuremberg, low rank guards following orders was not an accepted defense. Baron gave the order to the Gateman. Baroness initiated the whole series of events cheating, then finally trying to cross back knowing it was a risk. Lover for commiting adultery (assumed he knew she was married.) Last two were hard but finally concluded Boatman a bit more responsible if only because his part occured before the Friend. Boatman could have saved her if not for the demand of payment. Lastly the Friend. Last spot to be chosen I honestly didn't think too hard about it.


----------



## Connery

syrenn said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethical......those who acted with fidelity to their duties and the promise to carry out those duties. The wife who was with her lover got herself in a bad place because she was not "ethical" her lover should have done the right thing and made sure the baroness got home safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the friend?  Is a friend ethically someone who will support you, even though you may be doing something he/she disagrees with? Her friend did nothing to help her, knowing it could end in death for the baroness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes men and enablers....are not friends.
> 
> *the baroness did not have to go back.  *
Click to expand...


She did not have to go back, once the person leaves, they leave and do not look back. That was her fatal error, she went back.


----------



## syrenn

Connery said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the friend?  Is a friend ethically someone who will support you, even though you may be doing something he/she disagrees with? Her friend did nothing to help her, knowing it could end in death for the baroness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes men and enablers....are not friends.
> 
> *the baroness did not have to go back.  *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She did not have to go back, once the person leaves, they leave and do not look back. That was her fatal error, she went back.
Click to expand...


exactly......


----------



## Connery

syrenn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes men and enablers....are not friends.
> 
> *the baroness did not have to go back.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She did not have to go back, once the person leaves, they leave and do not look back. That was her fatal error, she went back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> exactly......
Click to expand...



Let's see the woman wanted to be away from her marriage and so she was. If she stayed home eating bon bons this never would have happened


----------



## syrenn

Connery said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not have to go back, once the person leaves, they leave and do not look back. That was her fatal error, she went back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see the woman wanted to be away from her marriage and so she was. If she stayed home eating bon bons this never would have happened
Click to expand...


she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.


----------



## Connery

syrenn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see the woman wanted to be away from her marriage and so she was. If she stayed home eating bon bons this never would have happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.
Click to expand...



Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get.  There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.


----------



## syrenn

Connery said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see the woman wanted to be away from her marriage and so she was. If she stayed home eating bon bons this never would have happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get.  There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.
Click to expand...



no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time. 

this was just not...cheating and staying.


----------



## Connery

syrenn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get.  There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.
> 
> this was just not...cheating and staying.
Click to expand...


I am not well versed in that ....thankfully....in my mind if either person wants to leave the relationship then farewell, heal and move on. There is no vacation from the relationship and no crazy stuff like "punishments".

If the punishment and threats have gone on for  a while then the baron may just be an insecure person where nothing has gone on before. The wife has had a lover for a while the threats and punishments could not have been so severe as to cause her to cease seeing  her  lover.


----------



## Amelia

Esmeralda said:


> What's your opinion?
> 
> "The drawbridge"
> 
> As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.
> 
> The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river.  'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.
> 
> After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.
> 
> Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'
> 
> The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded.  'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested.  'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.
> 
> Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee.  'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'
> 
> With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.
> 
> In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?
> 
> Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.
> 
> Ranking
> Baron
> Baroness
> Gateman
> Lover
> Boatman
> Friend





Gateman - 6 - he killed her
Baron - 5 - he ordered it
Baroness - 4 - she was told she would be killed if she went back and she still went back
Friend - 3 - for essentially telling the Baroness she deserved to die and not offering her a place to stay
Lover - 2 - for general principle because he probably knew how jealous the husband was and knew she was in danger any time she was with him
Boatman - 1 - maybe he could have saved her life for a day by letting her ride back for free or by accepting an IOU but he was actually giving her a chance to live by not transporting her back, a chance she failed to appreciate


----------



## Esmeralda

syrenn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get.  There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.
> 
> this was just not...cheating and staying.
Click to expand...


I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?


----------



## Connery

Esmeralda said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get.  There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.
> 
> this was just not...cheating and staying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?
Click to expand...



In affairs of the heart I walk away, in the relationship of two other people. The penalty for infidelity is the death of the relationship, not the physical death of a party to the relationship.   I just do not know how a person can have an affair and expect to go back to the relationship lickety split. The relationship was over long before the infidelity took place.

If a person came to me out of the blue asking for help such as this woman I would have helped


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them."

Depends on the culture. Pleanty still kill unfaithful wives. Or, about as often disfigure them with acid or other means. Ethics aren't universal. And since the Bible itself has death as punishment for adultery, that's a big chunk of the planet nevermind other religions like Islam and Hinduism who may feel similarly. 

20 Do not have sexual relations with your neighbors wife and defile yourself with her.
29 Everyone who does any of these detestable thingssuch persons must be cut off from their people.
- Leviticus 18

'Cut off' has been interpreted differently over the centuries. Some claim it means exile, others death. I tend to be of the 'exile' camp since punishments for death are spelled out explicitly without any need for euphamisms. Unfortunately, it's stated again in chapter 20 much more clearly:

10 If a man commits adultery with another mans wifewith the wife of his neighborboth the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
- Leviticus 20

In Islam, it's different:

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
- Sura 24:2

Difference is in Judaism, adultery is only when a married woman has an extramarital liason. In Islam, it's either the husband or the wife. (i.e. a Jewish husband having a liason with a single woman isn't commiting a sin-crime. But a wife having a liason with a single man is. Islam regards both as equally guilty, which is an opinion I'd actually agree with.)

I've concluded that religious punishments for adultery is because of how overly-valued hereditary is in such systems. Since inheritance comes into play based on who you're related to, and since Judaism at least treats the children of an adulterous trist as legitimate heirs, forbidding such things makes sense form an economic perspective. 

Outside religion, "Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." as Huxley said in "Brave New World." And interestingly enough, that sentiment has been confirmed by neuroscientists and researchers as far back as the 70s:

"Extramarital Sex

I also examined the influence of extramarital sex taboos upon crime and violence. The data clearly indicates that punitive-repressive attitudes toward extramarital sex are also linked with physical violence, personal crime, and the practice of slavery. Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.

These cross-cultural data support the view of psychologists and sociologists who feel that sexual and psychological needs not being fulfilled within a marriage should be met outside of it, without destroying the primacy of the marriage relationship."
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence


----------



## BlackSand

Esmeralda said:


> I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?



Yeah ... The Baroness didn't think that her pleas were unreasonable either ... And look at what it got her.
She wasn't killed for going and seeing her lover ... She was killed when she thought it was okay to go back home ... And live fat and happy in the castle.

Then she tried to drag her Friend and the Boatman into it ... So you could try and figure out how they were responsible for something they had nothing to do with.
If she hadn't have gone back she wouldn't have died ... The two of them giving her a ride back or the money wouldn't have saved her life.
The Boatman and the Friend did nothing to facilitate her death ... *NOTHING!*

The Baroness' problem was not screwing around ... But getting caught ... Thinking she was still welcome at the castle ... And not paying attention to the warning of the Gateman.

.


----------



## syrenn

Esmeralda said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get.  There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.
> 
> this was just not...cheating and staying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?
Click to expand...



the battered wife thing is just reading between the lines of the story....


----------



## Esmeralda

syrenn said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.
> 
> this was just not...cheating and staying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the battered wife thing is just reading between the lines of the story....
Click to expand...


Well, he does say  he will 'punish' her 'severely'  if she leaves the castle, but in those days, does that mean a battered wife or a domineering husband, which would be fairly typical.  She had apparently been to see her lover before without a problem, and she apparently didn't take her husband's warning seriously enough to think he would have  her killed.  I wouldn't go so far as saying she is battered; there's not enough proof for me. Not at least up until the end when he does have her killed.


----------



## Connery

syrenn said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.
> 
> this was just not...cheating and staying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the battered wife thing is just reading between the lines of the story....
Click to expand...



Ok now I get it...I read it as some knuckle dragging domineering clown who wants a sammie and his wife barefoot.


----------



## Barb

> Ethics aren't universal.



I beg to differ, Ethics are universal, as they are simply objective. Morals on the other hand are highly subjective to religious, cultural, and / or legal norms.


----------



## Esmeralda

Barb said:


> Ethics aren't universal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, Ethics are universal, as they are simply objective. Morals on the other hand are highly subjective to religious, cultural, and / or legal norms.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...interesting. Both morals and ethics are abstract concepts. What is the difference between morals and ethics? What is your definition of each?  Are you saying there are absolute rights and wrongs, universally, for everyone?


----------



## Barb

Esmeralda said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ethics aren't universal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, Ethics are universal, as they are simply objective. Morals on the other hand are highly subjective to religious, cultural, and / or legal norms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm...interesting. Both morals and ethics are abstract concepts. What is the difference between morals and ethics? What is your definition of each?  Are you saying there are absolute rights and wrongs, universally, for everyone?
Click to expand...


I am saying there are absolute definitions for words. 

And no, MORALS say that



> there are absolute rights and wrongs, universally, for everyone



Ethics say to do (optimally) most good while seeing to your best interests, and (minimally) no (or least) harm while seeing to everyone's (including your own) best interests. 

Which is a universal standard.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Until the aliens arrive and explain their ideas about ethics and morality, I'd say the best we can hope for is our notions of ethics are relative to us. 

Given every other animal on this planet (assuming carnivores) will eat you if it's hungry and thinks it can, our own exceptionalism likes in how we equate death and killing with being 'bad.' But it remains to be seen if evolving to a technologically developed state universally evolves that sort of thinking. An alien may not think twice about wiping us out because relative to them killing and death is not objectionable at all (just as we by the by, don't think raising and slaughtering livestock is.)


----------

