Who are the Hari?

we were unable to resolve the nature of evil to anyones satisfaction, therefore i will withdraw my statement of the Hari being evil untill the concept is defined. i could continue my arguments and examples but it seems an unessary action at this time.
 
Think of the Hari discussion like this --

Would you accuse someone of murder if you a) Had no proof that they'd murdered anyone and b) Had no indication that there was even a murder?
 
The other point to keep in mind is that what we *do* know about the Hari is filtered through the Kilrtathi viewpoint, which is often not impartial when it comes to ther species.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Battler Hawke

lets see turn planets to waste is doing nothing? sounds like the race from the sequal to the fleet. all they do is waste planets and all on them.
Click to expand...

...But, if the planets are uninhabited, no one else is harmed, so it would in fact be "nothing"...
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel
Without motives, there cannot be fault. After all, if you don't know that you're doing something wrong, you cannot be responsible for your actions.
Click to expand...

Not so. We are ALL responsible for our actions, whether or not our motives are "pure".

What yer probably referring to is the whole idea of culpability/guilt, which is where one's motives come into play. If I kill a guy who violently attacks me on the street, it's self-defense, and therefore justifiable. My motive was a "good" one (really, the ONLY "good" motive for taking a life), but I am still "responsible" for his death. I imagine I would want to reach out in some way to his family (even if just to say I was sorry), because of that responsibility.

And obviously, the guy himself would be responsible for the actions that ultimately led to my having to take his life, but because his motives were "bad", he would be not only responsible, but "guilty" (of attempted murder, etc.).
 
Originally posted by Preacher
Not so. We are ALL responsible for our actions, whether or not our motives are "pure".
Click to expand...

You're right and you're wrong.

You see, knowledge and intent are modifiers of responsibility. Depending on how much you know about what you're doing and what you're intentions are, your responsibility for your actions can vary. This means that it's possible to be fully responsible for your actions and it's also possible to be totally free from any responsibility.

What yer probably referring to is the whole idea of culpability/guilt, which is where one's motives come into play.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. That's not what I was referring to at all.
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel


You see, knowledge and intent are modifiers of responsibility. Depending on how much you know about what you're doing and what you're intentions are, your responsibility for your actions can vary.

This means that it's possible to be fully responsible for your actions and it's also possible to be totally free from any responsibility.
Click to expand...

1) The key word is "modifiers"... All your knowledge/motives can do is to perhaps modify your degree of responsibility, they do not obliterate your responsibility altogether. You are ALWAYS responsible for your actions; you're just not always "fully" culpable, or "to blame", or "at fault" for what the end results are.

2) Nope. You can be totally free from any guilt or blame in the matter, but you are still "responsible" (see above; see example given in previous post, and example below also...). Sorry for sounding like a lawyer, but actually in the medical field this is something we deal with all the time.

A surgeon takes his patient to the OR and the patient has a heart attack and dies on the table. The surgeon may not be "to blame" for his patient's heart attack , but he's still "responsible", in that if he didn't operate on the patient, the patient likely wouldn't've had the heart attack. Yet, the surgeon has to weigh the importance of the operation against the likely benefit to the patient, and then proceed. Life is full of risks, and that's the risk patient and doc knew going into it...
 
You're a health worker, Preacher? Cool. What do you specialise in? I'm currently finishing up my internship in clinical pharmacy myself.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Preacher
1) The key word is "modifiers"... All your knowledge/motives can do is to perhaps modify your degree of responsibility, they do not obliterate your responsibility altogether. You are ALWAYS responsible for your actions; you're just not always "fully" culpable, or "to blame", or "at fault" for what the end results are.

2) Nope. You can be totally free from any guilt or blame in the matter, but you are still "responsible" (see above; see example given in previous post, and example below also...). Sorry for sounding like a lawyer, but actually in the medical field this is something we deal with all the time.
Click to expand...

Hehe. You're obviously not thinking in the same terms I am. You have to think within the realm of all possibility.

I understand where you're coming from and a lot of it makes sense, but you seem to be unable to comprehend that there are, in fact, extreme cases where knowledge, intent, and free will have been radically affected. While they may very rarely occur (and despite the fact that you believe otherwise), there are cases where one is free from responsibility.
 
Wasting planets that have ecological systems on them (assuming that at least a few in a thousand would have), is a crime against the environment. We are only now beginning to prosecute these types of crimes.

Ergo, the Hari have been committing a crime.
 
Originally posted by redwolf
Wasting planets that have ecological systems on them (assuming that at least a few in a thousand would have), is a crime against the environment. We are only now beginning to prosecute these types of crimes.

Ergo, the Hari have been committing a crime.
Click to expand...

A crime against WHO?... Sorry, but "against the environment" doesn't count. Not in this case, anyway. Gimme a break. The only reason we are prosecuting crimes against the environment on this planet is 'cuz, um, well...we LIVE here!... :rolleyes:

In order for a "crime" (in the sense we use the term), to exist, you have to commit an offense against someONE, not merely someTHING. If the action causes some PERSON (or group of people) to suffer loss or hardship (directly or indirectly), then you can start using the term "crime".

In Earth's case, crimes against our environment hurt ALL of us (to one degree or another). Why?--cuz (again) we LIVE here, and in that sense we all "own" the planet. Taken to its logical extreme, your viewpoint would see it that every time we squash a bug underfoot, a "crime has been committed against the environment". This is ridiculous. The loss of one insect does not a crime against the environment make. If we wiped out a whole species of bug, well, then maybe it would begin to make a little sense (unless maybe it was cockroaches;) ).

:: Bangs his gavel:: "Case dismissed for insufficient grounds. Bailiff? What's the next case on the docket?..."
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel

...there are, in fact, extreme cases where knowledge, intent, and free will have been radically affected. While they may very rarely occur (and despite the fact that you believe otherwise), there are cases where one is free from responsibility.
Click to expand...

VERY rarely, indeed...
 
Originally posted by Raptor
You're a health worker, Preacher? Cool. What do you specialise in? I'm currently finishing up my internship in clinical pharmacy myself.

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...

I'm a Surgical PA. Been one for 15 years. Beginning to think it's time to move on to another career (3 words: "Managed Care sucks").
 
Originally posted by Preacher


...But, if the planets are uninhabited, no one else is harmed, so it would in fact be "nothing"...
Click to expand...

Perhaps -- but they still wrecked the ecosystem of said planets. Thus, we can see that if the Kilrathi hadn't exterminated them, the Greens would have.

I don't agree with your assessment of crimes "against the environment". Yeah, it can be taken to extremes, but remember
that the Hari were *completely* destroying *every* planet
they came across. If the Kilrathi were telling the truth, there's
no way we could have peacefully co-existed with such a species.
-- Brian P.
 
Originally posted by pendell


Perhaps -- but they still wrecked the ecosystem of said planets. Thus, we can see that if the Kilrathi hadn't exterminated them, the Greens would have.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta love the pretzel logic in that dynamic: The "Greens", so concerned with preserving the lives of lower life forms (trees, snail-darters, amoebas, bacteria, random atoms & molecules, etc., etc.), would fry an entire race of sentient *higher* (alien) life forms! LOL!
 
Originally posted by Preacher


A crime against WHO?... Sorry, but "against the environment" doesn't count. Not in this case, anyway. Gimme a break. The only reason we are prosecuting crimes against the environment on this planet is 'cuz, um, well...we LIVE here!... :rolleyes:

In order for a "crime" (in the sense we use the term), to exist, you have to commit an offense against someONE, not merely someTHING. If the action causes some PERSON (or group of people) to suffer loss or hardship (directly or indirectly), then you can start using the term "crime".

In Earth's case, crimes against our environment hurt ALL of us (to one degree or another). Why?--cuz (again) we LIVE here, and in that sense we all "own" the planet. Taken to its logical extreme, your viewpoint would see it that every time we squash a bug underfoot, a "crime has been committed against the environment". This is ridiculous. The loss of one insect does not a crime against the environment make. If we wiped out a whole species of bug, well, then maybe it would begin to make a little sense (unless maybe it was cockroaches;) ).

:: Bangs his gavel:: "Case dismissed for insufficient grounds. Bailiff? What's the next case on the docket?..."
Click to expand...


Actually, first you have to break a *rule* before you have a crime, believe it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top