|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 3, 2022 7:05:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Igniz on Jun 3, 2022 7:14:49 GMT
Renard explains about ethics and morals, then Annie explains what Renard explained (except that evolution sometimes does happen in a science lab). I'm eager to see Kat's witty comeback, jeez.  |
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Jun 3, 2022 7:19:56 GMT
On this page, Kat gets put on a better path.
I don't mind Renard's monologue, but Annie's feels a little forced.
|
|
|
|
Post by worldsong on Jun 3, 2022 7:42:38 GMT
I feel like Reynard and Annie are not paying enough attention to the fact that Kat apparently considers herself part of the Court so far as ethics and morality are concerned.
That's not just "Ethics and morality are complicated", that's straight up "Kat, have you forgotten the kind of stuff the Court has already done that we personally witnessed and/or had to fix?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jun 3, 2022 7:45:29 GMT
Yeah yeah, Annie. We all want to hug Renard, stop showing off.
|
|
|
|
Post by bicarbonat on Jun 3, 2022 7:47:27 GMT
RENARD: Why are you booing me, I'm right
|
|
|
|
Post by Viridian on Jun 3, 2022 7:48:16 GMT
On this page, Kat gets put on a better path. I don't mind Renard's monologue, but Annie's feels a little forced. I think it's supposed to feel forced, she's trying to diffuse the situation, not speak her mind. |
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Jun 3, 2022 8:07:11 GMT
On this page, Kat gets put on a better path. I don't mind Renard's monologue, but Annie's feels a little forced. I think it's supposed to feel forced, she's trying to diffuse the situation, not speak her mind. I suppose.. To me it reads like it could be broken up into a conversation rather than a block of exposition, but that's just nitpicking. |
|
|
|
Post by mochakimono on Jun 3, 2022 9:21:33 GMT
Annie and Renard both make good points, but still a little broad? Sure, generally we can agree that 'humanity as a whole' has a stumbling track record on ethical behavior, but the real sticking point is the track record of the Court's think-tank specifically. I'm hoping one of them brings that up soon, since I want to hear Kat's rebuttal - I'm still kinda foggy on her thought process here...
Anyway, Renard looks super fluffy on this page.
|
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Jun 3, 2022 12:11:33 GMT
Hold on I got to update my ethics and morals firmware
|
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 3, 2022 12:51:50 GMT
Jeannie died and we did nothing.
Love boat... it was worth it.
The beings who were going to help Anthony get his wife back from the dead. Renard killing someone for love. Y's attacks on court. Coyote mind raping Y. Loop attacks the day he was born.
Human, robots, ether beings, all not great on morals only some seem to wish to make amends after. Humans could make argument that as bad as they are, "absolute power corrupts absolutely", those with more power (thanks to ether) are probably worse. Jeannie might be seen as necessary evil, 2 people suffer so that thousands can avoid endless waves of forest attacks. Jones and others without much ether don't seem to be doing worse on moral compass than rest.
Most of history of court, ether has been the fuel of monsters that try to snuff out humans only held back by a divide with jeanne at bottom and every generation has to train fighters to defend court from ether monsters, and even then they only survive at whim of "childish" coyote. Peaceful coexistence has always been attempted (eg body exchange program between forest creatures and humans), but is tricky.
Kat based on her ability to so quickly create new people, flying machine, etc is powerful just like ether creatures, has potentially already made a skynet and terminators that will replace humanity.
It is not clear from evidence that court has available that ether/"great power" is source of morality or perhaps instead source of lack of morality/evil, a "deal with the devil". Is the power to split atoms, make nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs good or bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 3, 2022 13:24:23 GMT
If the etheric entities can have multiple conflicting/competing origins and truths that remain true, and not all cultures agree about what's good and moral (and their fables and myths reflect this), does not this mean conflicting/competing conceptions of good and morality are also simultaneously true in the GKU? Or... are they more or less true based on an expression of belief/power?
|
|
|
|
Post by ctso74 on Jun 3, 2022 13:28:29 GMT
"that evolution doesn't really happen in a science lab."
Give me a week and 20 undergrads...
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 3, 2022 13:40:38 GMT
Kat's shown a tendency to get carried away with scientific research for its own sake. Her "New People" project was just such a case; while it started off as just building a new body for Robot, it soon turned into being about the thrill of designing the "New People" bodies. (At first I thought, when she said she thought it would be an exciting thing to do, that that was just her cover story to avoid letting her parents or anyone else know that she and Annie were harboring a fugitive, but it seems now that she actually meant it, and that Robot needing a new body was just the catalyst). Not to mention her completely unnecessary use of Diego's arrow to switch custody of Reynardine back to Annie, just to see what would happen - and that brought about its own troubles.
I agree that Annie and Reynardine would help their case by citing specific cases of the Court's darker deeds; maybe it's just "story-required carelessness" to prevent them from steering Kat back from the direction she's taking, if that direction's crucial to the plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 3, 2022 15:06:49 GMT
I must admit that I was a bit confused by Rey calling ethics "technology," as I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit into that category.
But I suppose he was comparing and contrasting with Kat's trust in science and technology. It's just a bit distracting.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 3, 2022 15:20:07 GMT
I must admit that I was a bit confused by Rey calling ethics "technology," as I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit into that category. But I suppose he was comparing and contrasting with Kat's trust in science and technology. It's just a bit distracting. It's been a while but if I remember right the science of ethics was under axiology next to beauty, using the classical construction, so calling it a technology would refer to the application of same. That'd fit the background of panel #1 anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Jun 3, 2022 17:32:36 GMT
Based on the conversation in the previous page, I don't think they are saying that getting rid of the ether means they are literally getting rid of morality and ethics, just that the thought process tends towards getting rid of both, as evidenced by Kat's "no rules and restrictions". There is a difference between the idea that each individual has some tendency to do right and wrong versus the idea that a society itself is pushing a particular agenda of right and wrong. I don't think Annie or Renard would argue that what they currently have is perfect, but that the Court's way lies madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gemminie on Jun 3, 2022 18:04:53 GMT
Renard continues his point from the previous page, that humans have developed ethical and moral rules over a long time (longer than science as we know it has existed) in an attempt to prevent harm, sometimes more successfully than other times. He calls ethics and morals a "technology," interestingly. Billions of people have died in wars of "right" vs. "wrong" (despite some historical theories stating that all wars have been fought over land), and it's very unlikely that such questions are now settled.
Kat seems sheepish now. She doesn't look as if she's continuing her irritation with Renard.
Annie steps in, trying to clarify, and it appears that they've stopped walking. She brings up the point that a lot of the stories and myths humans tell have morality at their core, and such beliefs become part of the Ether. She makes an unrelated point that human beliefs about ethics and morality continue to evolve and that science has little to do with that. But back to the Ether again; if the Court severs itself from the Ether somehow, they may be "freeing" themselves from something that's more important than they can possibly understand.
Where are they now? They may be in the vicinity of their homes, from the color and shape of the buildings. They're certainly not in the ruins anymore; there's an intact window behind Annie in the last frame.
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Jun 3, 2022 18:55:36 GMT
I must admit that I was a bit confused by Rey calling ethics "technology," as I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit into that category. But I suppose he was comparing and contrasting with Kat's trust in science and technology. It's just a bit distracting. It's been a while but if I remember right the science of ethics was under axiology next to beauty, using the classical construction, so calling it a technology would refer to the application of same. That'd fit the background of panel #1 anyway. perhaps Rey views ethics as the science of the application of morals for the construction of a well regulated society. A technology of morals, if you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Jun 3, 2022 21:01:26 GMT
Based on the conversation in the previous page, I don't think they are saying that getting rid of the ether means they are literally getting rid of morality and ethics, just that the thought process tends towards getting rid of both, as evidenced by Kat's "no rules and restrictions". I interpreted it to mean that, by getting rid of the ether, the development of ethics and morality would stagnate, as those ideas would cease to influence the world through the ether. Not directly related, but it suddenly strikes me that, in the world of Gunnerkrigg, the phenomenon of simultaneous invention is probably attributable entirely to the ether. If someone dies fully believing in an idea, such as the theory of evolution, then in the next generation there will be multiple individuals (Darwin and Wallace) who come to the same idea independently as they are influenced by the bits of that idea floating around in the ether. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jun 3, 2022 21:22:03 GMT
For some reason this Rey speech made something click for me: how different reality is in GK. It explains why Kat and The Court are into this idea of moving. The act of doing science in environment without magic existing when you've been doing science along side magic is huge. The knowledge we have as fact in the real world is kind of up for debate in GK, the whole concept of the moon and stars as a big in comic example. But it gets deeper then that if you think about it, in that anything that exists, they do or understand could potentially be influenced by ether. While this probably isn't the case for most things and isnt a big deal to most people even if it is, that has to bother some people, like a lot. Very knowledge and science based people for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by knowit on Jun 3, 2022 21:53:04 GMT
One thing this conversation reminds me of is Kat and Paz's conversation about this very point; the court isn't a selfish monster doing evil for evil's sake, it's various people doing what they think *is* right, and sometimes the best thing to help with that is to be part of the system. If the court is really going to be so immoral when it leaves, maybe that's actually another reason for Kat to go too.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 3, 2022 23:36:22 GMT
the court isn't a selfish monster doing evil for evil's sake That's a crucial point to me. The Court's done a lot of bad things, but in a way that suggests misguided people rather than thoroughly bad ones. (Most of their bad deeds, in fact, have stemmed more from their - understandable - fear of the Forest, coming up with the wrong decisions on how to handle it.) The impression I have is that that harm they've done with their experiments is a larger-scale version of Kat's - getting so excited about making new discoveries that they don't spend enough time considering the possible side effects (Kat incorporating Diego's arrow into switching Reynardine's custody back) or how this discovery could be misused by others (Kat in "The Torn Sea"). |
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Jun 3, 2022 23:40:01 GMT
the court isn't a selfish monster doing evil for evil's sake That's a crucial point to me. The Court's done a lot of bad things, but in a way that suggests misguided people rather than thoroughly bad ones. (Most of their bad deeds, in fact, have stemmed more from their - understandable - fear of the Forest, coming up with the wrong decisions on how to handle it.) The impression I have is that that harm they've done with their experiments is a larger-scale version of Kat's - getting so excited about making new discoveries that they don't spend enough time considering the possible side effects (Kat incorporating Diego's arrow into switching Reynardine's custody back) or how this discovery could be misused by others (Kat in "The Torn Sea"). There's nothing misguided about Jeanne's story. That was just evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jun 4, 2022 0:00:43 GMT
For some reason this Rey speech made something click for me: how different reality is in GK. I'm getting something similar. It seems as if Annie and/or Rey is saying (so far) that human morality is not encoded in myths and tales, but in the things that those myths and tales are about, and if you lose the one you may quite literally find yourself lacking the other. This doesn't make much sense in our own world, but could be critically true in the Gunnerverse. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jun 4, 2022 0:11:59 GMT
That's a crucial point to me. The Court's done a lot of bad things, but in a way that suggests misguided people rather than thoroughly bad ones. (Most of their bad deeds, in fact, have stemmed more from their - understandable - fear of the Forest, coming up with the wrong decisions on how to handle it.) The impression I have is that that harm they've done with their experiments is a larger-scale version of Kat's - getting so excited about making new discoveries that they don't spend enough time considering the possible side effects (Kat incorporating Diego's arrow into switching Reynardine's custody back) or how this discovery could be misused by others (Kat in "The Torn Sea"). There's nothing misguided about Jeanne's story. That was just evil. Of cousre it was evil, but I'd say it was definitely misguided as well, and they no doubt felt justified. Afterall they didnt do it to hurt someone (well Diego did) but because as a group they were worried about a literal God being able to do as he pleases. Stopping a God by sacrificing two lives seems like a pretty misguided decision. People can justify anything afterall. |
|
|
|
Post by Igniz on Jun 4, 2022 0:12:02 GMT
I must admit that I was a bit confused by Rey calling ethics "technology," as I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit into that category. But I suppose he was comparing and contrasting with Kat's trust in science and technology. It's just a bit distracting. Ethics is a technology, too, in the sense that it is a techne, a system of applied knowledge about making or doing. And then we have the ethics of technology. |
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Jun 4, 2022 0:20:57 GMT
There's nothing misguided about Jeanne's story. That was just evil. Of cousre it was evil, but I'd say it was definitely misguided as well, and they no doubt felt justified. Afterall they didnt do it to hurt someone (well Diego did) but because as a group they were worried about a literal God being able to do as he pleases. Stopping a God by sacrificing two lives seems like a pretty misguided decision. People can justify anything afterall. I feel like we're talking about two different things. The misguided versus evil feels like a question of morals/ethics. I'm not exactly sure how you're using it, but having a justification is beside the point. Every evil act can be justified by those doing it. That doesn't mean evil doesn't exist. The fact that they had a justification doesn't mean it lessens the evil. And if you're suggesting that its efficacy is what it makes it misguided then while that might be true I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jun 4, 2022 2:24:42 GMT
Of cousre it was evil, but I'd say it was definitely misguided as well, and they no doubt felt justified. Afterall they didnt do it to hurt someone (well Diego did) but because as a group they were worried about a literal God being able to do as he pleases. Stopping a God by sacrificing two lives seems like a pretty misguided decision. People can justify anything afterall. I feel like we're talking about two different things. The misguided versus evil feels like a question of morals/ethics. I'm not exactly sure how you're using it, but having a justification is beside the point. Every evil act can be justified by those doing it. That doesn't mean evil doesn't exist. The fact that they had a justification doesn't mean it lessens the evil. And if you're suggesting that its efficacy is what it makes it misguided then while that might be true I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making. I'm not suggesting it lessens the evil and I agree: any act of evil can be and typically is justified to the person doing it. That isn't what makes the Court misguided. If anything I think it's the usage of misguided we aren't on the same page about, I see it as a common symptom of a certain type of evil, such as what happened with the Court. They are misguided because they think the ends justify the means, leading them to a very evil action. They didn't do it to be evil, or because they hated anyone(aside from Diego of course) or for greed or love(again, exculding Diego). They did it because they had the misguided view that protecting the Court from Coyete was worth human sacrifice, which I don't agree with. I don't live next door to a God and don't know the society and circumstances that existed then, but we've seen Coyete and his power, so they weren't wrong about him being a threat. If they weren't misguided, what would you say the reasoning they had was? |
|
|
|
Post by arf on Jun 4, 2022 2:34:13 GMT
In case it needs to be said, the Court's approach to science... isn't.
Scientists don't run away from reality just because they don't understand it, or because it doesn't match their preconceptions.*
That's what something else does.
* in a general sense. Examples abound of individuals trained in scientific method, even well regarded ones, who stick with a pet theory well past its use by date. The Court seems to have attracted a few of these.
|
|
