Kindly Necromancers

[coronatiger]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, no, actually, I didn't know what you meant. In fact, I'm still not sure that I do.

I write books for Steve Jackson Games. I enjoy doing it, so part of my motive is personal satisfaction, which is about as self-interested as you can get. But part of it is getting paid, and wanting to do books that will earn a return shapes my work. And I think that's self-interested too. And I'm not sure I can see a way in which my work "benefits the common good." It enables people to pursue a hobby that gives them pleasure, but that itself is self-interested behavior on their part. It kind of looks like elephants all the way down. So I think by your criterion, my writing GURPS books might have to be classified as "having crossed the line from good to bad." And I don't think that makes sense. But I'm not able to define the line you're drawing in a way that doesn't imply this.

I would suggest that something that benefits the common good is something that generally increases happiness, well-being or health in the society (or performs a public service), while something is detrimental to the common good if it decreases these things (or hinders a public service). (There are of course gray areas where an action is good for some people while being bad for others.)

Writing books that enable people to pursue their hobby would generally increase happiness (as long as that hobby isn't bad for other people). On the other hand, if one liked and/or got paid for writing books that encourages and enables "bad things" (like an instruction manual for "How to set off a dirty bomb and get away clean"), that would not benefit the common good. (A less extreme example could be writing hateful messages on internet forums - it certainly seems like some people enjoy doing that.)

An action doesn't have to benefit all of society to be considered beneficial for society. Let's say I stand up to give my seat on the bus to an elderly person. Another passenger compliments my good deed, and in the spirit of philosophy, I ask them whether they think my action benefited the common good. Most people would say no, but then I might ask: What if everyone did such things - would that benefit the common good? I suspect they then would say yes. In a city of one million people, if everyone except for one person did it, would it still benefit the common good? What about everyone but two? Three? When would it no longer benefit the common good?

I'm sorry if my rant went off on a tangent, but let me bring it back on topic: If the actions of a necromancer doesn't decrease happiness, well-being or health, or hinders common good deeds, they shouldn't be considered to be evil, even if some people think it's creepy or disgusting. If the general consensus is "when I die, feel free to use my corpse for labor, I don't need it anyway", raising zombies wouldn't be viewed as inherently evil. Think of it this way: In our modern society, giving away one's organs after death is generally approved of, so we don't think ill of the doctors who transplant the organs.