Ethically Sound Necromancy

Just to be clear, you would deny life to anyone who has died? That's a pretty extreme position.

People, if I understand what Cas is saying, it makes no difference what type of necromancy it is, or what the motivation for using it is. Cas is simply against bringing the dead to life, period.

I wouldn't deny rescuing and medication though. And I would prefer that everyone put it as 'I would allow the dead to properly rest and decompose'

edited 6th Oct '12 7:15:39 PM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

That seems to be the case, but you can't fault someone for poking holes in another person's argument to see if it holds water, can you?

edited 6th Oct '12 7:11:03 PM by KylerThatch

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

Obviously if we were a society where death was not a big deal, we would think differently of it.

The question probably implies that any form of necromancy is not a common thing, but a special ability held by "someone". That person is probably be going to be distrusted because of fear of power abuse.

But if necromancy could be ethical, and subsequently accepted, then I can imagine a couple decades in the future where it becomes more common. Perhaps even as an occupation.

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

To parse the less spiritualist aspects of this, Cassie's arguing against raising the dead because it would drastically expand any population crisis if it was done to everyone. (She did make an Appeal to Nature, which is ultimately not arguable; if you don't consider it wrong in se to raise the dead or seek immortality, then "meddling with the natural order" will be irrelevant to you.)

Personally, I think that animating the dead and raising the dead would be two separate ball games, and the first is more likely to expand resources than to occupy them. Cassie is right that a world where the dead could be returned to full life would raise a lot of social justice questions, though. If everyone can be freely returned to life and health, Thomas Malthus rears his ugly head (the modern world has managed to beat the Malthusian cliff through technological advancement, but the sustainability of this is in question), while if only an elite receive an immortality, that will breed the mother of all resentments. I disagree with her that we should automatically decide to keep the genie bottled because of potential problems, though; this is the kind of case where attempting to keep things bottled will, pretty much automatically, invite the powerful to abuse the technology for their own purposes.

In Time deals with the issue of the rich being immortal while the poor die young. It can tends towards dystopian.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

In Time isn't a fully fair treatment, since people can have their lives artificially cut short by the system, as well as extended.

We may be spinning into another topic, though.

I could see it though, where if necromancy is available only for the rich.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Well also that necromancy that brings back people that requires additional resources would also tax the economy. It's not so much, take today's world and then add necromancy. It would have been a technology growing alongside everything else in the world and so necromancy that taxed more resources would have been a drain on population growth and so Malthus doesn't matter.

You have got to be kidding me. Just look at Japan again. They tried running their economy on crime taxes, via yakuza. See how that's faring now for everyone.

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

As a fan of necromancy in general, and not believing it's an actual evil act(just neutral by default), I'd find this rather interesting.

I don't believe the "overpopulation" excuse, as in they can be anywhere, depending how they're raised. Zombies can just pile in any place. Skeletons take up little room. You could have them go to sleep in a closet.

The only resources they could take would probably be money for materials, but that depends how it's done more or less. Or none. If they could be used to actually replace the work force itself, money itself could be entirely eliminated, meaning that things could be done on good faith. That said, I probably would rather have a money-based economy, though. Just one neat possibility that removes tons of debt, etc.

As for the personalities, depending how it works, they could simply do nothing without the command of their master. Including moving, reacting, attacking, working, etc. That would solve a lot.

Quest 64 thread

Does not make it any less of a logical fallacy since her argument is basically "it is unnatural, and therefore it is wrong". Dozens of things are unnatural. Haven't heard her regarding them all "wrong" though.

Even if she does, that would mean that she has already define "natural" as "good" and "unnatural" as "wrong", which means that she has been Begging the Question all along as she already defined necromancy as wrong and of course it is therefore wrong. Her logic is completely flawed.

edited 6th Oct '12 11:52:42 PM by IraTheSquire

I remember reading a book once that had as a plot point some magical creatures that allowed people to talk to their dead relatives - Harpy's Flight by Megan Lindholm. The plot of the book notwithstanding, the point that I want to bring up is the way the author played it - it was shown as being really unhealthy for the people. One of them went to see the magical creatures to talk to her husband every day without fail. The son who inherited the farm never actually got to grow into his full potential as master of the farm/business owner, because he just went and asked his father what to do and did it.

Now, part of that was the manipulations of the creatures themselves, but it is an interesting idea. People are supposed to die and hand the reins of the world on to the next generation. This is a fairly liberal forum and people often do complain about conservatives in, for example, religion - how much worse do you think things would be if world leaders etcetera literally never died?

edited 7th Oct '12 12:00:11 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

I can say the same for people who reads ideas and experiences of those who lived before them and implement that to their current situation. What's the difference between that and asking for a dead person directly for advice?

edited 7th Oct '12 12:08:21 AM by IraTheSquire

Because documents from the past are set in the past, and you can't have conversations with them. It's one thing to read, say, racist scientific papers or newspaper articles or letters. It's quite another to actually have a great-great-relative hanging around insisting that no descendent of theirs is going to marry a [insert racial slur here] while they're around.

Be not afraid...

That is a far cry from the example that you've listed though.

Would I "fail to grow into my full potential" if everytime I come across a situation I've never been before, I consult books and articles written about people who have come across similar situation and how they deal with it?

Also, your point about leaders being able to live and take charge forever is questionable. There is something called "retirement".

edited 7th Oct '12 12:20:08 AM by IraTheSquire

No - Books and stuff are useful, but you have to apply the information you get from them yourself. And you have to make decisions for yourself. As an example that is both relevant to said book and something that I've encountered a bit myself: say the son had two choices - he could stay primarily with sheep and have cows as a minor operation on the side, or he could start increasing his beef operation in response to the various market forces at the time. The son went and asked his dad, the dad said 'No, stay with sheep', and that's what he did.

A farmer in charge of his own farm might look up information and ask others for advice, but eventually he'd have to make the decision himself. It's not a clearcut right-or-wrong thing that you could look up in a book; real life decisions often aren't. Otherwise why do people go to university for years to learn things?

Anyway, that was just a minor example. I do think it would have other implications as well. My basic point is that each new generation is supposed to move out from under the shadow of the previous one. The older generation 'passing the torch' on is important, and while death isn't the only way that happens it still has an effect.

Generally people are born, live, and have influence for their lifespan. And then they die. Keeping them around to have more influence than they would in a 'natural' world is going to change things. You could argue about whether this change would be a net positive or negative ( or neutral), but I think the fact that it would exist is obvious.

edited 7th Oct '12 12:31:39 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

You have got to be kidding me. Just look at Japan again. They tried running their economy on crime taxes, via yakuza. See how that's faring now for everyone.

I'm not quite seeing how that applies to the dead coming back to life. Unless we're positing an undead mafia or something.

What's precedent ever done for us?

My end point: necromancy cannot be ethical. If we do it like In Time , then it boils down to rich-hating. If we start judging 'entitlement' like say, oh my father died too early so I have to have him back for guidance, then it sets a biased precedence that opens way for all to follow suit, never moving on. If you raise the dead bodies and use them as 'routine' work forces, then what about those who are starving without jobs? If death is not the end of someone due to necromancy, then what is?

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

Read what I said again.

If the Zombies/Skeletons are work forces, Money itself can be eradicated. Which means nobody "starves". Likewise, they can easily replace the Military(if it's even needed anymore).

Yes, it can be ethical. Entirely. There is a thing about changing things at the same time instead of just "adding undead" and changing nothing else. A lot has to be done for it to work, and that's fine.

Quest 64 thread

When we developed the ability to restore the dead to life via medicine, we redefined what we meant by dead. Now people who are dead but revivable are not considered properly "dead" anymore but simply "clinically dead" which isn't the same thing at all, honest guv.

I would think that, in response to reliable necromancy, we would do something similar, using our new understanding of death to come up with whole new terminologies and defining which people are properly dead and should be left properly dead vs which ones are only sorta-dead.

I don't agree that necromancy would eliminate war - it'd just introduce a new threat to counter (probably with more necromancy - and clerics :) ). I imagine the dead would fill a role between tanks (being highly resistant to small arms), infantry and suicide bombers.

Necromancy could help against poverty in the same way any other technology and automation has (although humans have a habit of just procreating during times of plenty 'till there's lots of poverty again).

I doubt it would either. There's a small chance of that. However, it would reduce a lot of the killing of humans/organics.

Assuming that Zombies/Skeletons aren't organics, for the purpose of the context.

I think that would certainly help. Of course, the only person in danger is the Necromancer themselves, and it wouldn't be surprising, if, depending how the magic works, that if they were incapacitated/killed, the zombies/skeletons would disappear, turning into dust, whatever.

Quest 64 thread

If, as you said, we are to consider this from a realistic standpoint, I cannot agree. Nature is not some quasi-mystical entity "balancing" everything out; and "natural order" can and should be cheated whenever it is convenient. "Nature" is, well, just a short-hand for "the current state of things".

Care should be taken in considering long-term consequences, as always; but ultimately, the fact that corpses do not "naturally" get up and walk is not a reason for considering that unacceptable under all possible circumstances.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.