1. DLP Flash Christmas Competition + Writing Marathon 2024!

    Competition topic: Magical New Year!

    Marathon goal? Crank out words!

    Check the marathon thread or competition thread for details.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice

Magical People vs. Non-Magical People

Discussion in 'Fanfic Discussion' started by Ched, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. meev

    meev Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    357
    Funny, I'm pretty well off but I've never been able break the laws of physics on a whim. Guess I'm just not rich enough huh.

    This is like saying if God existed it wouldn't be technically superior to human beings. Of course it would. Ignoring bringing whatever arbitrary morals you live by into it, the ability to perform magic and make physical reality your bitch is not the same as being slightly smarter on whatever scale you happen to be going by in measuring intelligence or having more of whatever currency people in your society put value in.

    It's the ability to do incredible things that are literally impossible for a non-magical person to do no matter what circumstances they're in or effort they put into it, with no downside or loss of ability, a magical could do everything a non-magical could, plus more that the non-magical never ever could.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  2. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather The Nidokaiser ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    353
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011
    Where there are limits. See: Romney's presidential election.

    If magic exists, and the talent is limited to a select few, those few (from any perspective that doesn't care about ethics or morals) are more valuable. See the parenthesis as to why you can never have this perspective as the good guy.
     
  3. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    One of the Shires
    High Score:
    9,373
    Reality can be a subjective thing.

    My reality is a shitty job, little free time and a few hobbies. So a rich person (namely my boss) has direct control over my reality through the money they do or do not spend. Might as well be physics for the power he has over my life.

    That's the thing about power; it isn't just the stuff we use to make the lights turn on.
     
  4. mknote

    mknote 1/3 of the Note Bros. DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,383
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne, Florida, United States
    That's why I feel that magic should be limited, and perhaps even made to where Muggles could do these things with technology, albeit in the rather distant future.

    See, the idea of some people being inherently superior to others is so morally repugnant to me that I base my ideas and theories of magic around the idea of that not being true. That's why I disagree with many of Taure's theories, because his view of magic is much less restrained than mine and gives too big of an advantage to wizards. To each their own, I suppose.
     
  5. Ched

    Ched Da Trek Moderator DLP Supporter ⭐⭐

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    8,378
    Location:
    The South
    Someone said that the good guy could never have the perspective that Connor has... except Connor is one of the good guys, and I want to play him that way. Even if he feels that wizards are inherently better / more evolved / whatever, that doesn't mean that he doesn't value all lives. It doesn't mean that he'll lobby for unequal rights or show favoritism to wizards or try to exteriminate the norms -- he can still see the worth in a normal over a wizard, if the wizard is lazy and the norm isn't. And so on. He's a good guy, though perhaps partially an anti-hero, who thinks it's a "fact of life" that wizards are better and more evolved to live in the world than humans. That doesn't mean he can't

    But to respond to a few other points made... There is a difference in saying that an Olympic runner was born with an advantage that most people don't have and saying the same thing about a wizard. Even if both are true... everyone, barring horrible accidents or serious defects, can learn to run. Not everyone is capable of being an Olympic gold medalist, even with hard work, but they still learn to run.

    Not everyone can learn to be a magic-user. No matter how hard you work (in some stories, whether I play it that way or not), you can't learn to use magic. It's not like running...

    ...but I still love the comparisons and competing views. I personally do think that fundamental worth can't be measured by things like abilities (and that's the stance that Paytah or my other main character will take). But I got a fantastic response here so far, and it seems that others are getting into it as well. Fun times :)
     
  6. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather The Nidokaiser ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    353
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011
    Well, if he is the good guy, just point out the value of a person's life is not about what they could do, but what they actually do. A wizard could harvest the crop and keep the town fed for the season in a day if he wanted to ( an example) but chances are good that he won't. Instead the farmer and the farmer's family will plant, sow, and deliver the crop and engage in some kind of trade that results in enriching the lives of many (the family has new clothes/toys/building material, and the makers of those objects get to eat) which is what is important. Without getting too preachy, point out that the potential good of 1,000 wizards is nothing compared to the actual good accomplished by 10,000 peons.
     
  7. Thyestean

    Thyestean Slug Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    成都
    So, house elves have the most worth because they work all day with no pay and are happy about it.
     
  8. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    Wat.

    Uncle Kim is calling. He's got a nice place in North Korea for you :/


    It's sliding scales, Cheddar. One person having a skill such as magic while another does not is just the most extreme form of inborn inequality. Everyone can learn to run, yes. Can everyone learn to become an Olympic champion? Can everyone learn to be brilliant and make tons of money off his genius even given completely equal chances?

    A world of complete equality is not one where I'd care to live in, and that's why Noxed's answer to your question -- "Why should they be worth the same?" -- "Well, imagine if they weren't, and you were the one on the lower end" -- is a non-answer for as long as you don't define what the practical consequences of that state (in Noxed words, "all this") are.

    It'll turn out that you have to keep the value of a person separate from his abilities, skills and position, because otherwise demanding equal worth means demanding equal abilities, skills, and positions -- and since that is impossible create for those who lack it, you can only take it away from those who have, and force everyone on the lowest common denominator. In your example, that would be outlawing magic, because it's an "unfair" advantage given only to some people and not all.


    Edit:
    And that's nonsense, of course. It sounds more like the reverse of beating one over the head with the moral club: believe in xyz or you aren't a decent human being. No need to go there, even if you agree that it's not a desirable trait: those are called flaws, they make characters interesting.
     
  9. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    One of the Shires
    High Score:
    9,373
    I disagree. Equal worth does not mean discriminating against those who have greater skills than they. It simply means that the base treatment of all people is the same. It also means that the people in power do not discriminate against a demographic based on an arbitrary measure; all actions taken by the powerful must be weighed against the actions of the weak, not their variable traits.

    I'm not putting it down well, but essentially I mean to say that the variable traits of a person/demographic should not be considered when the powerful take action against them. For an example: A poor, unskilled man murders a man he catches in bed with his wife. A second, rich, charismatic, politician murders a man in the same situation.

    The same crime has been committed in both scenarios, but in a world where the worth of a person is variable the politician is likely to receive a lighter sentence than his poor counterpart.

    That's the primary purpose of making all men equal in worth. It's to prevent those in power from dishing out unequal sentences simply because one man has more money/talent/power than another. All men must be held accountable under the law, therefore all must be treated equally under the law. It's the basic principle of our legal system and changing it paves the way for abuses of power that the First World hasn't seen since monarchs actually ruled.
     
  10. LittleChicago

    LittleChicago Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary
    What it boils down to, CT, at least for me, is that everyone, whether magical or muggle, is human.

    The inherent value or worth of a person's life must be based on that one, inarguable fact, the one thing that all people, regardless of ability, shape, size, colour or origin, have in common. In modern society, we have established that all people, by the simple virtue of being people, are equal (in theory).

    Once we start making certain groups or individuals more important or valuable, we are essentially saying that either they are not human, or the rest of us are not human. Either way, one group has to be re-defined to stand outside the group of 'humans'; it's the only way that group can be considered more or less valuable.

    Think of the slave trade, or really, any lengthy war situation - to assuage guilt, the soldiers and even the civilians of one nation will be taught and encouraged to think of the enemy as something less than human. It's the only way to keep us fighting and hating - 'they' are not 'us'. Therefore, 'they' are worth less than 'us'.

    To an alien third party, the differences are superficial, if they are visible at all. Yet, we, as one of the groups, train ourselves to see the differences.

    I guess it all comes down to how your characters define themselves - going back to the X-Men example you brought up; Magneto always considered himself superior to humans, but Professor X just considered himself human with a gift.

    How do your magic users define themselves?
     
  11. Ched

    Ched Da Trek Moderator DLP Supporter ⭐⭐

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    8,378
    Location:
    The South
    Great answer all around LC.

    To answer this question using the initial characters I put forth though (who again are placeholders for actual characters)... Connor does think of himself as being superior. Unlike Magneto he doesn't feel a need to act on it violently, probably because his group isn't being persecuted (Mutants were), but he has trouble understanding how anyone could disagree with it. Some people are just better than others because somehow or other they won the genetic lottery, and magic is the grand prize.

    Paytah is of the second variety, where he just sees it as having a gift that not everyone is lucky enough to have. Most people in the story follow his view as well. Connor is a bit of an elitist though, being better at magic than most and having very high intelligence. Eventually someone will point out to Connor that having magic isn't what makes him so good at it, it's his mind -- and norms can be just as brilliant. He'll still argue that it doesn't matter if they can't make use of it like he can, but it'll get him to start thinking.

    I don't want this debate to be a huge part of the story, but I do need to nail down exactly where all my primary characters stand on the issue (as well as society as a whole). This thread has given me a lot of areas and shades of grey to play around in, as well as the basic tenet that "everyone is equal, worth isn't based on anything but that we are all human" which will be the counter to Connor's ideas.
     
  12. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    Uh. That was what I said >_>

    It can't -- mustn't -- mean that. And that's why I prefer to define "worth" and it's equal distribution as an intrinsic, axiomatic quality, as opposed to doing so by its consequences, but that does mean that a question like "why should everyone be worth the same" is simply invalid and has no direct answer, just justifications.

    And that's the heart of the matter. Compare: In any generic high fantasy setting there are different races, and if race X thought they were better than race Y no one would start to frown based on moral grounds. It might appear conceited or arrogant, but not as having a questionable moral. They are simply different races or species.

    Whereas if the same happened e.g. in IRL, we clearly frown upon it (arguing for slaves, medieval class society).

    Constructing a thing such as magic is where both states meet -- the same group, but with wildly differing skills, or two different groups, which aren't really comparable. And that's why in that case, you can look at it from two sides.
     
  13. Sechrima

    Sechrima Disappeared

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    841
    Location:
    NRW, Germany
    I'm not going to comment on the magical side of things, but just focus on the general question of human worth.

    The thing about humanity, is that everything eventually returns to mediocrity, if not dipping even below that. Greatness is sporadic and spontaneous, and can happen just about anywhere and at any time, but longevity isn't really one of its traits.

    Descendants of great men and women probably won't be great themselves. Powerful corporations tend not to survive for more than a generation or two under the leadership of a specific family. The dethroned monarchs of fallen kingdoms are a far cry from the visionary founders of dynasties. No matter how hard people try to control breeding (caste and class societies, etc.), reversion to the average will occur.

    The best thing about the modern world, in my opinion, is universal education. Greatness can and does arise in all walks of life, among all classes, and the best way to seize the moment and take advantage of a great individual is to make available sufficient resources and opportunities for everyone. It would be a monumental mistake to limit education and opportunity to only a small, 'elite' fraction of the population, especially if that fraction is determined by birth. Just because you're born to two intelligent people doesn't mean you'll be intelligent, and even if you are, you'll probably not know the value of hard work and will be lacking in true ambition, or charisma, or some other vital ingredient in success.

    Classes will probably always exist so long as we're constrained by our biology. But the best sorts of classes are those determined by merit and nothing else. Those who have what it takes to thrive should comprise the upper class, no matter the circumstances of their birth. Those who don't have any particularly advantageous qualities should fall to whichever socio-economic station suits their potential best. Trying to force the issue one way (i.e. hereditary privilege) or another (i.e. communism) is oppressive.

    Personally, I think laws need to be written concerning inheritance. Inheritance of excessive wealth and property is wasteful, and would be better off going toward education and other services needed to keep opportunities open to all.

    None of this is really a question of ethics or morality, although it does perhaps have something to do with justice. Ultimately, it's just a simple matter of determining what sort of society will work best for the largest number of people, and allow the greatest advances in technology and increases in living standards to be achieved.
     
  14. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,845
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    I think there's a certain amount of idealisation of greatness going on in that, Seschrima. I'd argue that greatness is actually mostly a result of an unusual coincidence of historical factors, which someone is able to take advantage of.

    That's why greatness fades back to average - because it never existed in the first place. What existed was the right environment for an average (or slightly above average) person to shine.

    In reality, the range of human capabilities is not so great. Even geniuses are not so much smarter than complete idiots, on the grand scale of things (comparing us to other animals).

    Most "revolutions" - political, cultural, scientific - are not so revolutionary. What often appears to be a sudden shift in attitudes, once you look at it closely, turns out to have been merely the culmination of a long process involving many people. This is certainly true of the Newtonian revolution, and relativistic physics. It's perhaps less true of quantum mechanics, but actually if you look at how chemistry advanced you can see the beginnings of quantum mechanics there, rather than in physics.
     
  15. Sechrima

    Sechrima Disappeared

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    841
    Location:
    NRW, Germany
    That's probably true, to some extent. But I meet plenty of 'smart' people with degrees and what have you, but they have so many other limitations to their personalities, that it's obvious they'll never amount to anything other than a mediocre profession. So many people settle for much less than what they're really capable of. And it's that will to succeed which is probably a lot more important than actual intelligence or some other measurable quality. What makes humans capable of success and driving society forward isn't really something that falls within the parameters of heredity, and so a society based on hereditary privilege will rarely be able to tap the true potential of our species.
     
  16. Garden

    Garden Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,685
    I won't argue with the truth or non-truth of this statement. I don't know enough about history/science to make a claim either way. Obviously opportunity is neccesary, but the right person is needed too.
    There's a continuum, of how much each influences outcome.


    But I will say that an attitude based on the above beliefs isn't the best if your goal is to be great. If you don't have a nearly delusional level of confidence that you can change the world in a significant, positive (to you) way, then you won't ever try, because rationally speaking, not everyone will be great or awesome or famous.
    I'm a big fan of "Pragmatist" by William James, in case you can't tell.
     
  17. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather The Nidokaiser ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    353
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011
    http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html

    Are you familiar with this OP?

    If not you may understand my confusion as to how to be a good guy when you already have 2 of the 8 steps covered. You have already identified them as others, and gave a way for your protagonist to identify and validate dehumanizing them.

    I'm reading this with interest, but I disagree fundamentally that you can seperate magical and non magical humans and remain moral in your actions. Once you have reached the "us"/"me" and "them" stages you have already begun intolerance. Then it is a matter of time until persecution becomes evident (their opinion matters less, you don't want to inconvenience yourself to help them, etc).

    From a characterization perspective it is important to have the novel working harmoniously towards the end -that is, magical is better is right because XYZ or all humans are equal because ABC- otherwise it would probably confuse the reader.
     
  18. T3t

    T3t Purple Beast of DLP ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    High Score:
    3,164
    I disagree. I won't accuse you of projecting, but I think it's unfair to say that just because somebody separates other people into groups that means they will inevitably start to discriminate against other groups.

    I think a very large point is being missed here: what exactly is "worth"? If we're talking about a moral/philosophical judgment, then no, magic users probably aren't worth more than non-magic users.

    If we're talking about everything else, then yes they are, unquestionably.

    Look at it this way: you have a sample space of all possibilities (situations). The expected value of random magic user X is going to be higher than that of random non-magic user Y. More often than not, the utility of a person who is capable of casting magic is going to be greater than the utility of a person who isn't able to cast magic. In fact, the number of situations in which that is reversed seems to be rather limited.

    That's not to say that they should be treated differently, but to pretend that there's no difference between them is asinine and counterproductive. A magic user may be able to do jobs that a non-magic user simply can't, etc.
     
  19. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather The Nidokaiser ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    353
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011
    Connor has moved beyond grouping stage and actively asserts that magicals>non magicals. That is discrimination by definition. See the human-canine relationship for the best possible result from one inferior and one superior species coexisting where the superior species thinks they are valid in being superior.

    If you are not accusing me of projecting, don't bring it up. That is the same thing as saying " I mean no disrespect but <hateful object here>". If you are going to insult someone man up and just say it outright.

    I don't see where I said "by classifying groups you will discriminate against them" but rather said that "by classifying groups as less important than your own, you begin the steps to intolerance." With sauce to back it up, but I could pull about 5 other sources from google and college databases (assuming you have access to those) about the research for that assertion.
     
  20. Thyestean

    Thyestean Slug Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    成都
    Then the question becomes what do we define as human. In a world with other magical beings, giants, veela, centaurs, etc; how is the decision made. Where do you draw the line between human and non-human.

    I somewhat disagree. While there is a small difference between us and chimps, it is that difference that defines us as humans. We can't compare ourselves to animals due to the small genetic differences. That would be like comparing us to an alien race that is the same small difference between us and them. They would look at us like we do chimps, as animals. We have to compare ourselves to other humans.

    And the difference between Newton and an idiot is huge. To say otherwise is an insult to Newton. He saw the world in a way no one before him did. He was able to visualize abstract concepts and developed the mathematics to prove it. Everyone else at the time gave up and said it was due to the heavenly bodies. And, he did it before the age of 26. Now genetically I would agree that the difference between him an idiot is small. However, the way he was able to see the world around him, bend the heavenly bodies to the constructs of his mind, took him far beyond the realm of an idiot. Granted, he too claimed (I think it was the n-body problem, can't quite remember though) it was extremely difficult and did as so many before him, gave credit to god.
     
Loading...