Alputone

I have said multiple times this is all my opinion not some objective fact. I brought it up because I found things about her character I disagreed with and wondered what everyone else thought. When asked why I felt the way I did I gave explanations as to why. Also because the situation Micaiah was in was interesting.

Not doing the right thing because it's too hard or unrealistic is not an excuse. Humans are weak and fallible no one is debating that. But in a moral conflict human weakness doesn't really factor in to determining the right thing to do. Morality is not supposed to walk in step with human nature it's actually supposed to curb it.

So because I have a different view point than you I must be oblivious to the world around me? Look if you're a consequentialist then you could make the case that Micaiah did the right thing by making the decision she believed that would save the most amount of lives or at least the most amount of her nation's lives. The thing is I'm not a consequentialist. I don't believe that the means justify the ends. That's about as clear cut as I can make it. You don't have to agree with me we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

No it's not. Micaiah didn't write the blood pact or sign it. It's not her fault if Lekain activates it. It's Lekain's fault. That's like blaming the victim for not giving in to the oppressors demands. Daein has been screwed twice in the games and both times are it's leaders fault. Falling under Begnion occupation was Ashnard's for invading Crimea and the Blood pact was Pelleas's fault for being too stupid not to read the terms of the treaty that was written by the very country you just won your freedom from. So because Pelleas screwed Daein by signing the blood pact now the Laguz Alliance has to perish because better them than us?

No I'm not okay with killing anyone. I just don't believe killing a few to save many is right. And in Micaiah's case if worse comes to worse and the blood pact is activated she wouldn't be responsible Lekain would. Yeah but you're are giving the consequences of an action greater precedence than the action itself. It's the principle that is more important to me. She wouldn't be sacrificing the people of Daein instead it would be Lekain killing the people of Daein they are two separate things. Having a gun pointed at your head or being blackmailed does not give you license to do whatever it takes to get out of it.

Kill a few to save many is wrong in my eyes. I admit it's not wrong in the eyes of others but from my own point of view it is and why I disagreed with Micaiah. There was a way namely NOT killing a group of people that have done no wrong to you. If the blood pact was activated then that's not Micaiah's fault that is Begnions. We are only held accountable for what we do not others. Again I'm not saying she should do nothing and I understand Micaiah doesn't want anyone to die but you don't try to save your people by killing others that don't deserve it. Again I agree with you that's it's unrealistic but unrealistic as it may be it still doesn't justify waging war on the Laguz because the population would be more down with that. When it comes to means vs ends in a moral conflict I lean more towards the means as being more important than the ends.

I never said I didn't understand why a person would do something different or in Micaiah's case why she did what she did. I understand it perfectly, I would even sympathize with her. It's just that I don't believe certain circumstances justify certain actions.

The point of the trolley problem is to question whether it is okay to commit a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil. I was assuming you were substituting the lesser evil with attacking the Laguz to the greater evil of activating the blood pact. Yeah in theory the state/citizenry is SUPPOSED to being like parent/child but in practice it comes out more like employer/employee or worse master/slave. I was going for what the state is ideally supposed to function as. Yeah I'm pretty committed to not committing murder on innocents to save innocents even if they are my own. Totally crazy right. I don't get what you're saying here? So what? Daein has acted horribly towards the Laguz so that makes it okay to go ahead and continue it? What's realistic and unrealistic is a whole separate issue between what's right and what's wrong. Just because forming an alliance with the Laguz may have been met with resistance doesn't make the alternative of waging war on them any less wrong.

I'm familiar with the trolley problem and it kind of reminded me of the situation. Between pulling the lever and killing one person and doing nothing resulting in several. If you haven't guessed I wouldn't pull the lever. It is an honest example because the parent/child relationship is reflected in the state/citizenry relationship. Both the parents and the state are responsible for their respective others. I have no doubt that Micaiah made her decision based not just out of duty but love for her people. Okay you got me here most people wouldn't be rational I admit but still I maintain that just because your loved ones may be at risk doesn't give you justification to commit evil by killing innocents to save your own. Yeah this is also true. The player knows the Laguz Alliance are not bad guys but Micaiah doesn't know that. However she doesn't know anything about them. The only thing she does know is that they haven't attacked Daein or anything worth declaring war on them for. Just taking Pelleas's word for it is okay in most situations but not going to war. She needed to either demand justification from Pelleas or resign. There are limits to what a person can do out of duty.

Yeah this is true but even though they would understandably be upset about it that doesn't justify taking revenge. They can be mad that they lost all they want it doesn't make them any less in the wrong.

Well it depends on just what that person's values are and to what extremes they would go to pursue them.

The right to do was to do everything she could to save her people without having to attack a group of people that don't deserve it. It sucks but you're not going to tell me that killing others just to save your own is acceptable. No way.

Yeah but that's not the Laguz's fault. Remember Daein was preparing to invade Gallia right after Crimea so they were simply defending themselves. Daein brought about it's own ruin with Ashnard, it's no other counties fault.

Actually I have. I would gladly give my own life for my child but never someone elses. But it's just a difference in morals like you said. It's the reason I don't like her very much because she's willing to do cross lines and the game presents it as unfortunate but acceptable when I don't.

Here she says she's willing to commit evil if that's what it takes to save Daein and why I strongly disagree with her. Yeah, I don't see how this means she just doesn't care. Complete opposite, in fact. She doesn't want to see anyone die, but her hand has been forced. "If that's what it takes to be just, then I want nothing to do with justice." Maybe I'm misinterpreting what she is saying here but to me it says if doing the right thing means the destruction of Daein the screw doing the right thing, she would rather commit evil if it meant sparing her country. I'm not saying she should just stand by and do nothing and let Daein perish she should do everything within her power to save Daein but you don't do that by attacking and killing people that have done no wrong to you. There are lines you just don't cross.