crouching_sin | [Anon] [Text]

[Oh, that's an easy one.]

No.

In fact, I'd hate to see any kind of medicinal practice where that would be acceptable.

Doctors need to save all the lives they can though, right? There's no other way to save these people. Should he let them die and have killed five people rather than one?

There's a difference between doing what's right and making decisions that aren't yours to make.

So you should let them die, then? That doesn't sound right.

It doesn't really matter. You can't pick and choose which lives are more important than others. Maybe it's not fair, but what's fair isn't always what's right.

Edited 2015-03-16 21:11 (UTC)

Trust me, I understand that all too well.

But why can't you? Why shouldn't fair and right be the same thing?

Well, what exactly IS fair, and what exactly IS right? You end up just arguing semantics. You have to do the things that seem fair or right to you, based on how you personally interpret those things. And sometimes you do things that aren't fair to you but are right for others, and that's just how it goes. It all depends on the things you value most, I guess.

If that's the case, then how can society interpret fair or right at all? If I don't consider something a crime but society does, who's to say that they're right but I'm wrong?

That's what you get for living in a structured society; you need to follow the rules the majority makes for you. Maybe you're not wrong in your own eyes, but you'll always been wrong in the eyes of some.

Of course, there are SOME things -- say, murdering someone -- that shouldn't be done regardless. But that's just common sense!

Sometimes people need to die to save other people. You can't say for certain that you know what should or shouldn't be done without knowing what the cost of not doing it is.

I can see the logic for saying yes. One life for five. The ends justifying the means. Someone might ask more info on the patients. Their input into society. Their ages, if they have family, etc.

But I still wouldn't say it's morally right. It's DEF. unethical since a doctor swears to do no intentional harm. But honestly morality and ethics have nothing to do with logic anyways. If it was me dying, or someone important to me, I don't know for sure what I'd say.

I'd... LIKE to say no, which is really all anyone can really say and still be honest.

You'd like to say no? What you'd like and what the right thing to do aren't always the same thing. Isn't it better, as you said, to save five people? The backpacker has no one who's going to miss him.

Then the value of a life is only in what they offer to others? If the backpacker has no family or friends, it's like he doesn't exist? I can't accept that.

That depends. Maybe the backpacker would go on to make a mark on history, but odds are that he wouldn't. The odds are somewhat better among five people.

Well that assumes that a life is measured by what they do in their life. I just don't agree with that. EVERYONE is a world of potential and possibility you can't ever predict.

You either have to agree that every life is precious or no life is- either way it's ruins the choice as anything other then self serving. There's no purely logical way to do it.

True. It depends on your ethics. It's a question usually used to introduce a concept called 'utilitarianism' - basically, maximizing potential happiness and minimizing pain.

Which is something everyone tries to do. And we all try and do it at the expense of others. I know I did.

But... I dunno, I don't like the idea that it's a limited resource. Or even that losing the chance to experience more invalidates what you already had. But I guess I kinda have a weird experience when it comes to death. Pain is something worth experiencing too.

It depends. People have so little time in life... it makes sense at a basic level, though when you pick it apart it starts becoming less clear.

And... oh? Do you? What kind of 'weird experience'?

This is a variant of the "runaway trolley" problem, isn't it? Five young children on the tracks with a runaway trolley bound straight towards them, and you have the possible option of pushing a single large man into the way, because his size will be enough to effectively stop the train. Yours has slightly different trappings, but it's effectively the same question — five saved for the sake of one lost, and is the morally correct answer the one that results in the greatest sum total of preserved lives, regardless of the means used to get there.

My question is, at what point did the surgeon on duty decide it was his right to play god?

That's correct. A student of philosophy, I see.

Don't doctors play God all the time, though? Patient lives hang in the balance every day and people live or die based on his actions or inactions.

Doctors are also charged to "first do no harm" as they make those decisions. And it's hard to justify murder under an ethical charge to do no harm.

True. The ambiguity is a bit more clear in your example... but it's interesting to see people react to the doctor example since doctors are generally held to be respected individuals in communities. So the response to the question is generally much more extreme.

It's obvious you're testing to see how people react, as opposed to advancing any particular side for yourself.

What is it you're trying to discover, exactly?

For one, knowing how people judge morality is amusing, if nothing else. It also helps when it comes to figuring out just what sort of thing a person will react badly to in the future. So it's just statistics, for now. I can't battle all the time.

You aren't concerned that it goes both ways?

There's a reason I'm on anonymous.

Anonymity isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Sometimes, but it's useful.

At least until you give away too many tells. Then its use ends up becoming moot.

That's true. But identities are easy to make.

And yet in the end, they're still only identities. Some things never change.

Of course. But masks are easily changed.

Meaning, you have no identity whatsoever save for whatever is most convenient at any given moment?

That's a sorry way to live.

I have my own identity, but I choose to bring it to bear on decisions as I choose. I've seen too many people destroyed by trying to fit their feelings where their feelings don't need to go.

And you think that perfect objectivity will get you further ahead in life?

It's gotten me further than most, though I admit that I don't know what other worlds are like.

This is a terrible question. Why would you ask something like this when it's impossible for a situation like this to happen here?

[...look, this hits a little too close to home and it's really bothering Rossiu.]

No one can die here, so a question like this is pointless.

[Sorry, but he's not going to be baited into a video response just yet, Rossiu.]

In a place where people can die, then.

[...he's actually not trying to bait, he's just not very good at texting...]

It shouldn't be left to one person. It's not fair to let someone play god with all their lives. It's especially not fair to consult the people who could die either way.

So your answer is no, I'm guessing?

Of course. I would never do something like that.

[...this sort of thing happened in his village for years, so he's still very worked up over it.]

Granted, I couldn't be in that specific position to begin with. I don't know anything about medicine, much less surgery.

[And naturally he gets caught up on that.]

... It's a hypothetical situation. I would be surprised if you did know something about medicine or surgery.

...I don't think I know anyone who knows how to perform surgery...

[THAT MIGHT BE A BAD THING SINCE THEY'RE FIGHTING A WAR, UM]

Why did you pose this question in the first place?

[He doesn't sound accusatory any more, at least?]

Curiosity. The way that people respond to philosophical thought experiments can tell you a lot about them.

...I suppose I see the merit in that. It would at least give you something to think about. Have you gotten any interesting answers so far?

Most are the expected answers, so far.

They're mostly answers like mine, aren't they?

Something like that, yes.

I'm glad to hear that.

[...]

While I don't appreciate your question, I do understand why you'd be curious about it. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

You're welcome. That's a surprisingly civil answer, based on what I've seen so far.

I'm sorry for being short with you before. I knew a person who was in a position of power who did something... sort of similar. It's something I never want to see happen again, so this sort of topic is important to me.

I see. No, it was just a hypothetical. Nothing that I've seen happen.

Good. It's not a pleasant experience at all.

Thanks for talking with me though.

You're quite welcome.

[...Wh...]

What the actual hell is wrong with you.

[Even evil has standards, and Jinnai's...apparently stop short of the stolen organ extravaganza that is this question.]

It's just a thought exercise. Don't get so worked up.

Edited 2015-03-11 01:22 (UTC)

And that exempts the asker from criticism for posing it in the first place?

I'm not saying that it's something I would do. Do you hold your teachers accountable for every question that they pose students?

...You know, my teachers are actually really bad examples for this, you might want to try using another rhetorical question to try to pointlessly assert yourself.

... That bad, huh?

Something like that.

I guess if you really want an answer to whatever went wrong with you today, it's obviously not morally permissible but that doesn't mean it's not an option. If a surgeon doesn't have consent to do it but is actually considering it anyway, I'm pretty sure morals are already so far off the table it's not even a point anymore.

That's a fair point. And what if you were the surgeon? Still no?

It...depends, I think.

On?

There's someone I really want to see dead. If he were our backpacker, I wouldn't think twice.

Lesser considerations are how much I care about the five people whose organs are failing, or if they're random.

That's a fair point. I think there are a lot of people who would think that about me, for example.

I'm pretty sure everyone thinks that about somebody.

[...Jinnai, I'm pretty sure they don't.]

Whether they acknowledge it or not, yes. Probably.

So. Are you going to share your thoughts on the matter or not?

Personally? If we're assuming that the surgeon wouldn't get caught, then I'd say that while it's morally wrong according to most standards and certainly a breech of his oath, the surgeon wouldn't be wrong to do it if it were to save the lives of the other people.

More realistically though, it's unlikely to ever work, unless everything went perfectly. And there's definitely the risk that the organs would go bad by the time he got to the fifth patient anyway, since he's not likely to want other people around to help him. People talk, after all.

How isn't that wrong, in your opinion? Because it spares five instead of one?

Exactly. Isn't saving lives the job of a doctor?

...Do you want to point out where murder fits into the job description as well or just try again? Your choice.

Is letting people die without doing everything you can to help them better than murder?

...I think the answer most people would give here is something like "Yes, because then you don't have a direct hand in the death."

Most people are squeamish.

Or they just have different priorities.

I don't think it really matters whether one is better or not, personally.

To be honest, I don't really think it does, either. It's just something people tend to tell themselves to make themselves feel better about it.

There's not much point in doing that, though - if people need to die then so be it.

Most people don't seem to like thinking of it that way.

Most people don't have experience with it.

I still think there's too much wrong with the original question for it to pretend to be worthy of discussion, even as a thought experiment - but I'm curious about what sort of answers you've gotten.

Most people seem to be giving an immediate reaction of 'no'. Other people have said 'no', but because of more intelligent reasons like 'because you'd lose your license'. No one yet has said 'yes' - which is fair, since this is a rather extreme example of utilitarianism.

[Well, this is cute.

Here's an actual doctor offering his two cents!]

I wasn't aware that tissue typing is part of a regular checkup.

I'll humor you though. I wouldn't run the risk of cutting him open, regardless if his records say he has no relatives. It's highly unlikely that he is completely cut off from society, so someone will come looking for him eventually. That, and there is no guarantee that the patients' bodies will accept the transplant even if the man's organs were a match. How unfortunate it would be to have multiple dead patients and a dead backpacker to deal with?

They would be better off with magic, honestly. I don't know about your definition of magic, but it most certainly can save patients with organ failure.

[...what a doctor, amirite.]

[Oh, interesting. Someone with an actual brain.]

This is just a hypothetical exercise, generally meant for students, but your points are valid. So you wouldn't do it, not based on a moral decision but based on a practical one?

... And yes, some magic certainly could. But we're assuming that magic doesn't work in this situation - as in, this world doesn't have magic.

Naturally it's hypothetical, since I don't see a situation like this cropping up...ever, really. The odds of the man being a perfect match for all five of those patients is astronomically low.

That's right. Due to my reasoning, the thought of using this man's organs wouldn't even cross my mind. There are plenty of legal methods of obtaining organs, and I imagine any real doctor—or student—would have looked into various options first depending on how long the patients have been in his or her care.

I will concede to the non-magic condition, for the sake of this conversation at least.

Of course. This question is usually posed to students to introduce them to the idea of utilitarianism. It's also good for getting them to start arguing, so there's that.

Ah, that's the concept of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain, correct? I certainly danced around the core question in that case, didn't I? Let me think about it that way.

I understand that others may feel remorseful for not being able to save the patients by normal means or would go to extreme lengths to maximize the amount of lives saved, but I tend not to put my personal feelings into my work, as you could likely guess. And I'm certainly not going to put my license and reputation at stake by murdering a perfectly healthy patient for the sake of saving more lives, especially right in the middle of my place of work.

That's fair. It's certainly a situation where one would have to think, but most people wouldn't do it. The ones that would are, as you've guessed, the ones who tend to get caught and have their licenses stripped and locked away.

But it's an interesting thought experiment at the very least.

I would have no pity for those who went through with it and ended up actually surprised by the outcome. They already put too much thought into it by even considering it as an option in the first place, and yet lacked foresight about what could happen after they completed their actions.

But I do agree, this has been interesting. I've seen several thought experiments on the network in my time here, but none so outright morbid as this one. I bet you've struck a nerve with some network members.

[Apparently the one about drowning someone wasn't morbid enough. We need to be stealing organs for it to get morbid.]

Apparently I have. I've gotten several people asking me what I'm even thinking. I'm thinking of philosophy, obviously.

And you decided to go this route as opposed to something a little more digestible for the network? Or were you hoping for strong reactions?

I'm not judging you by the way, I think it's an interesting angle.

Strong reactions tell you more about a person than weak ones do. It's interesting to see how people phrase things, since a few words change everything.

I doubt you're going to get any weak reactions to a question like that, so...nice choice.

Have you even gotten any particularly interesting responses aside from the oh-so predictable "of course not how would you even suggest such a thing"? And mine of course, I suppose.

[He can of course see the responses but he's curious to know this person's particular favorites. He'd like to learn a little more about the person behind the question.]

Apparently someone had this happen where they're from, which is interesting.

And someone else said that this kind of thing doesn't exist where they're from. Their excitement is amusing.

They were faced with the option of killing one person to save another? I highly doubt it was the exact same situation as the one you described, after all.

As for the second person...what did they mean by that?

My guess is that no, other people were killed to keep people healthy? I didn't exactly quiz him on it.

I think it's more that medical science hasn't gotten to that point there.

Hm, well that's interesting indeed. On both counts, though the second is unfortunately barbaric. It's very difficult to imagine this level of science not being present somewhere.

[He's definitely glad he didn't grow up in that person's world.]

I guess I'll have to thank you for the amusing discussion today. I needed a decent break from my shift right about now.

It surely hasn't been at this level for all time, though. And I'm certain that this level of technology is still barbaric to someone. Surely there's someone here from a more advanced society... though I've yet to find them.

And you're welcome. I enjoy these sorts of discussions.

[Haha, about that...]

Well, you wouldn't be wrong with that assumption. I wouldn't necessarily call this world's technology barbaric, but it's certainly far behind my own world's.

It's somewhat behind mine as well. At least in some areas.

Where would you say it falls short, then?

It doesn't seem to have the same level of industrial technology. Certainly not in agriculture, or else I imagine there would be more people around and more cities.

you cant cut a guy up without his permission!

[Ahuh, that's the part of the text he decided to focus on.]

Edited 2015-03-11 01:51 (UTC)

Well you can, but the question is should you?

No! i mean he should at lest have a choice in the matter, you cant force him into it.

besides, what if those five other people end up dying anyway?

Edited 2015-03-11 02:05 (UTC)

Well everyone does die, eventually. But in this example it would save their lives and allow them to live out the rest of their natural lifespan.

I know that. Still not okay to make his decison for him.

And that's a fair way to feel about it, certainly.

So is there an answer to thd question or are yu just trying to make me feel bad for not tryin gto save more people?

There's very rarely a 'right' answer where morality is concerned. It's important to know what the other argument is, though.

Usually the right answer is whatever makes the most people happy.

And wouldn't saving those people make the most people happy? They'd be alive, their families would be happy they're alive, and no one would miss the backpacker.

okay wait a sec

you can take someone's organs out... put them in someone else... and it'll WORK????

I'm assuming you're from a world with less advanced medicine than mine, so - yes. In many cases, yes.

oh wow that is AWESOME!!!! i'm gonna have to tell my dad about that if he ever shows up here again, he'll think it's just the coolest thing ever!!!

...but wait a sec

if you can take organs from someone and put them in somebody else, why are we hypothetically killing this guy???? it's a hospital, right?? aren't there dead people around who you can take organs from instead??

i mean they're not actually using them and he is

It only works if various things match up. It's often difficult to find just the right person who can take the organ without the body rejecting it.

well, couldn't you do the same tests on already dead people that you did on the backpacker??? or is the backpacker just a magical guy with super organs.

Most organs only work well if they're transferred very recently after death. The organs start to die, too, if they're left too long.

you still probably have a bunch of recently dead people in the hospital, though... i'm still not seeing why trying to go for that isn't a better solution than killing a guy!! you're at least trying to make sure people don't die without killing somebody innocent.

It's a question about how far you'll go to save someone, really. Do the needs of the many outweigh the acts you commit to help them?

well, you should try to save everyone without hurting people, so you just need to find a way to do both.

That's not always possible.

who cares??? you should always do the best to make the impossible possible!!

and if you can't do that, then you worry about scooping out someone else's organs without their consent while they're still alive!!!!!!

[... What does he even say to that.]

You sound like a protagonist from shows that my brother used to watch.

and is that not a goal to aspire to??? who DOESN'T want to try and be the best hero they can be??

i mean aside from villains i guess.

Don't villains have more fun, though?

if you're approaching heroism totally wrong then sure they do. but if you're a hero you should have fun saving people and being a great person!!

But heroes have all of those rules to follow. It's restricting.

Honestly, I don't see where this is at all the surgeon's business in the first place; the fact that he's considering breaching whatever oath he took when he gained the right to practice medicine implies that he's greatly overinvested in the situation and shouldn't be permitted to make that choice to begin with.

Edited 2015-03-11 03:48 (UTC)

That's fair. Though it's more of a question over whether killing or letting someone die is more abhorrent.

Oh, I'm fully aware of what it is. It's still a flawed problem by way of legal and social trappings, however.

Do you have an answer for your own question, or are you just polling the rest of us through idle boredom?

I have an answer, yes. The answer is 'no', though because of the loss of license and the future loss of opportunities to save patients.

If that weren't an issue, then yes... possibly. It depends on who the people are.

Though yes, boredom is a large part of this.

Edited 2015-03-11 04:04 (UTC)

You would have done better with the original version of the trolley problem, you know.

This one is more fun, though. People give more interesting reactions. I like playing devil's advocate.

Really? I have yet to see you actually do so.

Let's hear your argument, then, if you're so fond.

Provided that no one would know, and that the people are people that you would actually want to keep alive and not, say, someone you hate - then I don't find a real ethical problem within my own internal ethics. If the goal is to maximize potential happiness and minimize suffering, then wouldn't keeping more people alive be the more ideal outcome? Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, even if neither side really knows what's best for them.

Of course you don't have a problem with your own internal ethics in that regard; what you just described by your own admission is personal investment in people you have reason to be invested in, whatever that reason may be. Ask anyone if they would hypothetically do anything for the people they care about and you'll marvel at how quickly their sense of morality flies right out the window.

You can't pretend, in the circumstances you've provided, that keeping more people alive or satisfying the needs of the many has anything to do with it, and as such your claim to arguing devil's advocate is still neither valid nor accurate.

It was a nice try, though.

You asked about my argument, and I was under the impression that you wanted to hear my opinion. If I didn't care about any of them, then of course the risks outweigh the benefits. It's an example of utilitarianism at its most basic form, which has problems as we've discussed. It's an introductory example.

And yet by your own admission, posing this problem has nothing to do with debating utilitarianism and everything to do with trying to seem edgy and getting a rise out of people.

People are interesting when you can get a rise out of them. Sometimes they change into things that you never thought that they would... though most just shout amusing insults at you.

[ What kind of question is that even. ]

There's nothing morally permissible about that. Any doctor worth any respect knows the one of the tenants we're taught is to do no harm. The circumstances may be unfortunate but without the donor's consent, there's really nothing we can do.

Even if one of the people was someone you cared about?

Edited 2015-03-11 16:57 (UTC)

[ Ooh, that's a toughie. Immediately, his mind goes to Rin. If Rin were in that position... would he be willing to forego his Hippocratic oath? It takes him a while to respond. ]

Maybe. But only as a last resort.

[ Because he'd rather give his own organs. ]

I see. So your oath only goes so far. Interesting.

Everyone has their reasons.

[ Really, who IS this guy? ]

[You don't want to know, Yukio.]

Of course they do. It's just interesting to think about where everyone's morality crosses their limit. Don't you think so?

[ Given his Bible stories, no it might be best if he didn't. ]

No one's perfect. No matter how many times in a day someone prays or how strong their faith in God is, we're still human.

[... Well that's sure a line that got crossed.]

God has nothing to do with morality or humanity being what it is. His laws are more cruel and ruthless than any that humans could make.

[ Hey man when you're raised by a priest. ]

The Lord gave humankind free will. It's faith that keeps most people on the path of what they consider morally good according to His will.

You don't know the first thing about God or the real world. The churches are corrupt themselves, and God is a tyrant. He wants humans to stick to a very strict code that they can't hope to abide by, and punishes those who wander. He wants humans to stick to a standard that's unrealistic, and will strip their free will the moment they stray.

[ Oh Shiro, if you could see him now. ]

My father told me the Lord always welcomes back those who stray. He forgives those willing to ask for forgiveness. The Church isn't perfect but then again, who is?

And why should someone ask forgiveness for crimes that were not their fault? I'm willing to bet that I have much more experience with this than you do - He pushes people to do terrible things, simply to make examples of them. Many of the villains in the Bible were merely people who were set up to fall just so a point could be made. And what happens to them? Horrible things... and all because He needed a target.

My father had always spoken of a merciful, forgiving God. He never said anything about the tyrannical overlord you seem to see Him as.

I have much more personal experience with Him, unfortunately.

Personal... in what way?

I've spoken to Him. At least, the one in my world.

You've spoken to God? Personally?

[ Everyone speaks to God, yeah... but with the way this one's going on? ]

I have, yes.

[Someone I know might have said yes at one point.

But my answer is no.

[It's that simple to her.]

Oh? Interesting. And why not?

Because questions like this are ridiculous. Only someone stupid would chose to take the backpacker's organs without asking.

[... Dammit Fran]

Edited 2015-03-11 17:23 (UTC)

Stupid, or unethical according to the definitions of most people?

[....]

Unethical. The question itself is stupid though. At least to me.

Maybe. It's supposed to get you to start thinking about your own morality. It's intended for students, actually.

Makes sense. I don't usually go to school.

I enjoy it. Some of it, at least. Or I did when I went.

holy shit no

who even thinks of that

Philosophers do.

It does not matter either way. Those people will die when they are scheduled to.

'Scheduled' to? I suppose you're someone who believes in fate or something like that, then.

Yes scheduled. Everyone has a predetermined death date, time and cause. If you want to call it fate, then I suppose it could be considered that to those who do not understand the process.

[... Uh.]

And just how do you come to have this knowledge?

I am a Reaper of the Dispatch Management Division. I am required to know.

[... Well then.]

I see. As in, you take souls from their bodies at the time of death?

Yes. We reap, view and judge any souls scheduled for death.

And what happens to them after that?

Any number of things. Honestly, it is not my department so I can't say I know the full procedure. But there are many options for afterlife.

[ William, stop making it sound like they all go to see a travel agent afterwards. ]

I see. That's not the case where I'm from. Souls are reincarnated without their memories.

That is one of the options. Though I am curious, how are you aware of reincarnation if no one remembers their previous life? They shouldn't even be aware of the possibility if that is the case.

Things such as that are one of my particular fields of interests. It's somewhat of a specialty of mine.

Interesting. Would you mind if I asked your profession? Or is this simply a hobby of yours?

Me? I work with computers. It's just something that I've studied on my own.

An odd interest.

Still, if you ever have any inquiries about how death functions in my world, I would not be adverse to answering them for you.

Is it? It seems like a pretty normal interest to me. Don't a lot of people have an interest in what happens after they die?

And that sounds good to me.

True. Though it seems more are fearful of it rather than actively seeking information about it out of interest.

People have different reactions to that kind of thing.

I suppose so.

What got you interested in such a topic, to begin with?

Personal matters, to be honest. Ones that aren't open to discussion, and certainly not here.

I apologise. I was merely curious.

It's understandable, but some things are personal.

Of course. I won't pry.

['sup, teacher.

Atsuro's walking over, trailed by his Dedenne. His mousy little friend is currently nibbling on a chestnut right now.]

...What are you doing?

[He may or may not try peeking at Naoya's PokeGear once he's close enough.]

[Naoya looks up, and is momentarily distracted by Legion bobbing menacingly. Stop that, Legion.]

Posing a philosophy question. I expect most people will react negatively... but there's a reason I use anonymous posting.

Oh, that question about the doctor and patients?

[Once Atsuro got a glimpse of what's on the screen, it confirms his guess and he looks back at Naoya.]

I saw it earlier, but I didn't get a chance to really read through it all.

It's a philosophy question. Some people take it seriously, others not at all seriously, and some people too seriously.

[He just shrugs. People are people. That's what makes humanity and free will a good thing.]

I'm not surprised. Do you have any favourites among them?

[Atsuro's pulling out his PokeGear to check out the post. His Dedenne try to climb up onto a couch to sit down on. Atsuro pause to help her out.]

There you go, Flonette.

... The one who didn't know what organ transplant was seemed pretty amusing, actually.

[Badb the Murkrow flies over and sits on the back of the couch, looking down at the Dedenne.]

[Flonette looks up at Badb while eating a nut. She waves at the Murkrow.]

Didn't know about it? Sounds like they're from before medical science went that far.

[Scrolling until Atsuro stops the screen on his PokeGear.]

Ooh, found it!

Mm. It's still a little strange to me, all of these different worlds... but there's so much more to learn.

[He actually sounds faintly excited about that. Human progress had exploded recently, but most of it built on things they'd already known. Having entirely new things to study... now that's worth getting excited about.]

Yeah! That's one of my favourite things about meeting people here. Who knows what kind of world they're from and what kind of progress they made?

[Atsuro keep most of his attention on the screen, reading the replies. A lot of the answers are fairly typical, like moral outrage. And then there's the philosophical and pragmatic ones.]

Exactly. It's a lot of different opportunities.

[And maybe someone from some world will have an idea of how to break his curse. There's at least a possibility.]

Definitely a lot of opportunities...

[With demon control given to the government, Atsuro expects to see some technological advancement in the future. A number of current technology were built for warfare.]

Or even a glimpse into a possible future, in some cases. Maybe not the same future, but stuff like advancements in medicine and technology.

Unfortunately it's unlikely that people from the future know all of the technical details of things... which makes the knowledge of limited use.

[Naoya's Arbok slithers over and plops his head into Naoya's lap.]

Oof - careful, Yurlungur.

Yeah. The odds of a mechanic or a scientist from the future coming here is pretty low. If they do come, I'd like to learn from them and adapt their knowledge for my timeline.

[Seeing the Arbok coming closer, Flonette looks alarmed by him and get up to move closer to Atsuro on the couch. Atsuro blinks and look down from where he's standing, and glance over at where his Dedenne is looking at.]

...Don't worry about it, Flonette. I'm here and you can probably handle it.

He's not much of a threat to you. I wouldn't worry.

[He gives the snake some scritches on the back of his hood and... yes. His tail is wagging a little bit.]

[Flonette peeks over at Yurlungur from behind Atsuro. And gives a tentative wave.]

'Bok chaa-bok!'

[Hello, friend!]

He's not very fierce... oh well.

[H...hi!]

If he's not fierce, that means you two can be friends!

He battles just fine, but I think he prefers being lazy to being terrifying.

[Yep. He's just got a goofy snakey grin on his face.]

[Now Flonette's moving out from behind Atsuro.]

A lazy snake... Well, Pokemon can have very different traits.

Of course. They can have personalities just like anyone else.

It's what make getting a new Pokemon fun and exciting. Especially when their personality really contrast with their looks or the stereotypes their main typing have.

Heh. Like Yurlungur here. He's not vicious at all unless I order him to.

[... And even then, not really.]

That almost make me want to battle him with one of my Pokemon.

[One of his lower leveled ones, of course.]

Heh. Definitely. I don't let any of mine slack off, no matter their personalities.

Just let me know and I'll be happy to help. Fighting against other trainers give better experience than wild Pokemon.

I've noticed. We can spar later, but right now I think he's enjoying being lazy.

[And that earns him another tailwag from the snake.]

I don't think I need to be operating on anyone, I don't have a good track record with saving people.

... It's a hypothetical question so we're assuming that you have enough of a skill level to do this.

Oh.

No, I don't think it would be okay to chop up a random person and deal out his organs like Uno cards.

[The fuck is Uno again - oh.]

Why not?

It's not nice. Those organs don't belong to you.

_{[Here's our horror game protag concerned with being nice. Okay.]}

They don't belong to you even in situations that aren't this one. It's not like you transplant your own organs.

I don't think a patient who is a day away from dying of complications would have time to recover from a surgery that serious anyway. Everybody dies.

... I suppose that's a fair way of looking at it, though somewhat missing the larger point.

A question like this has a lot of parts to it.

What would you do?

It does, though it's more of a question of utilitarianism. Sacrificing something for the greater 'good'.

In my position... provided it was possible to do and that I wouldn't lose my license or something like that, I wouldn't have any problems doing it.

I'm still going to go with no. I wouldn't do it. My gut tells me it's wrong.

_{[HE'S HAD ENOUGH SACRIFICES TY.]}

Humans have bad gut reactions to a lot of things that end up being the right thing to do.

Disagree.

_{[Henry you can't just write the word DISAGREE in a debate.]}

That's... that's not an argument.

Disagree.

_{[Wow, this is much easier! Henry has a very small satisfied smile on the other end of the network.]}

[Is he - he is.]

You're just making yourself look childish, you know.

_{[HE SURE IS. And by now he's waved over a few other members of the household to watch his screen.]}

Disagree.

That's all you can say, isn't it?

[Anon] [Text]

text

[anon text forever]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

text;

[anon text forever]

[text]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

anonymous text;

[AUDIO]

anon text;

audio forever

anon text forever;

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

anon text forever;

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject