Moral Dilemma

[Connery]

exactly......

Let's see the woman wanted to be away from her marriage and so she was. If she stayed home eating bon bons this never would have happened

she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.

Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get. There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.

 

[syrenn]

Let's see the woman wanted to be away from her marriage and so she was. If she stayed home eating bon bons this never would have happened

she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.

Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get. There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

 

[Connery]

she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.

Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get. There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

I am not well versed in that ....thankfully....in my mind if either person wants to leave the relationship then farewell, heal and move on. There is no vacation from the relationship and no crazy stuff like "punishments".

If the punishment and threats have gone on for a while then the baron may just be an insecure person where nothing has gone on before. The wife has had a lover for a while the threats and punishments could not have been so severe as to cause her to cease seeing her lover.

 

[Amelia]

What's your opinion?

"The drawbridge"

As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: 'Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!' But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely; despite her husband's warning she decided to visit her Lover, who lived in the countryside nearby.

The castle was situated on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river. A drawbridge linked the island to the mainland at the narrowest point in the river. 'Surely my husband will not return before dawn,' she thought, and ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned.

After spending several pleasant hours with her Lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a Gateman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. 'Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you,' the Gateman cried. 'The Baron ordered me to do so.

Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her Lover and asked for help. 'Our relationship is only a romantic one,' the Lover said. 'I will not help.'

The Baroness then sought out a Boatman on the river, explaining her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. 'I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks,' he responded. 'But I have no money with me,' the Baroness protested. 'That is too bad. No money, no ride,' the Boatman said flatly.

Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to a Friend's home and, after explaining her desperate situation, begged for enough money to pay the Boatman his fee. 'If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,' the Friend said. 'I will give you no money.'

With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the Gateman.

In order of priorities, who is most responsible for the death of the Baroness?

Rank the six characters below: 6 for most responsible; 5 for next most responsible, down to 1 for least responsible.

Ranking
Baron
Baroness
Gateman
Lover
Boatman
Friend

Gateman - 6 - he killed her
Baron - 5 - he ordered it
Baroness - 4 - she was told she would be killed if she went back and she still went back
Friend - 3 - for essentially telling the Baroness she deserved to die and not offering her a place to stay
Lover - 2 - for general principle because he probably knew how jealous the husband was and knew she was in danger any time she was with him
Boatman - 1 - maybe he could have saved her life for a day by letting her ride back for free or by accepting an IOU but he was actually giving her a chance to live by not transporting her back, a chance she failed to appreciate

 

[Esmeralda]

she really did not want to be a way from her marriage at all.... Typical battered wife syndrome.... and THAT is the sad part. All she wanted was to have some fun while he was gone....and not get caught.

Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get. There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?

 

[Connery]

Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get. There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?

In affairs of the heart I walk away, in the relationship of two other people. The penalty for infidelity is the death of the relationship, not the physical death of a party to the relationship. I just do not know how a person can have an affair and expect to go back to the relationship lickety split. The relationship was over long before the infidelity took place.

If a person came to me out of the blue asking for help such as this woman I would have helped

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them."

Depends on the culture. Pleanty still kill unfaithful wives. Or, about as often disfigure them with acid or other means. Ethics aren't universal. And since the Bible itself has death as punishment for adultery, that's a big chunk of the planet nevermind other religions like Islam and Hinduism who may feel similarly.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.
- Leviticus 18

'Cut off' has been interpreted differently over the centuries. Some claim it means exile, others death. I tend to be of the 'exile' camp since punishments for death are spelled out explicitly without any need for euphamisms. Unfortunately, it's stated again in chapter 20 much more clearly:

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
- Leviticus 20

In Islam, it's different:

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
- Sura 24:2

Difference is in Judaism, adultery is only when a married woman has an extramarital liason. In Islam, it's either the husband or the wife. (i.e. a Jewish husband having a liason with a single woman isn't commiting a sin-crime. But a wife having a liason with a single man is. Islam regards both as equally guilty, which is an opinion I'd actually agree with.)

I've concluded that religious punishments for adultery is because of how overly-valued hereditary is in such systems. Since inheritance comes into play based on who you're related to, and since Judaism at least treats the children of an adulterous trist as legitimate heirs, forbidding such things makes sense form an economic perspective.

Outside religion, "Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." as Huxley said in "Brave New World." And interestingly enough, that sentiment has been confirmed by neuroscientists and researchers as far back as the 70s:

"Extramarital Sex

I also examined the influence of extramarital sex taboos upon crime and violence. The data clearly indicates that punitive-repressive attitudes toward extramarital sex are also linked with physical violence, personal crime, and the practice of slavery. Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.

These cross-cultural data support the view of psychologists and sociologists who feel that sexual and psychological needs not being fulfilled within a marriage should be met outside of it, without destroying the primacy of the marriage relationship."
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

 

[BlackSand]

I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?

Yeah ... The Baroness didn't think that her pleas were unreasonable either ... And look at what it got her.
She wasn't killed for going and seeing her lover ... She was killed when she thought it was okay to go back home ... And live fat and happy in the castle.

Then she tried to drag her Friend and the Boatman into it ... So you could try and figure out how they were responsible for something they had nothing to do with.
If she hadn't have gone back she wouldn't have died ... The two of them giving her a ride back or the money wouldn't have saved her life.
The Boatman and the Friend did nothing to facilitate her death ... NOTHING!

The Baroness' problem was not screwing around ... But getting caught ... Thinking she was still welcome at the castle ... And not paying attention to the warning of the Gateman.

.

 

[syrenn]

Fun while he was away I get, but battered wife syndrome I do not get. There are many reasons a person cheats and stays. a person in her position(baroness) is one of those reasons.

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?

the battered wife thing is just reading between the lines of the story....

 

[Esmeralda]

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?

the battered wife thing is just reading between the lines of the story....

Well, he does say he will 'punish' her 'severely' if she leaves the castle, but in those days, does that mean a battered wife or a domineering husband, which would be fairly typical. She had apparently been to see her lover before without a problem, and she apparently didn't take her husband's warning seriously enough to think he would have her killed. I wouldn't go so far as saying she is battered; there's not enough proof for me. Not at least up until the end when he does have her killed.

 

[Connery]

no man will threaten "punishment".... and then follow through with not only punishment... but orders to kill.... if something like that has not been going on for a very long time.

this was just not...cheating and staying.

I don't get the battered wife thing either, not in this little story. It says in the story he is very jealous. I imagine a much younger wife, which was typical in those days, and that he was jealous and suspicious because she was young and pretty/beautiful. But, as she had a lover, he had reason to be jealous. I think she was reasonable to return because there is no indication of battering or abuse, not as the story is related, only of a jealous husband. If we are to look at it from a modern day viewpoint, he would be more ethical to have her watched and to ascertain for certain if she were unfaithful. If she was found out, he would get a divorce instead of killing her. In the modern perspective, we don't murder spouses who are unfaithful, we divorce them. This is an issue of ethics, and the ethical thing to do is get rid of an unfaithful spouse, not murder him/her. She was unethical to have an affair, but, as I posted earlier, I don't think the ethical punishment for infidelity is death. She was foolish to try to leave when her husband had threatened her, but, again, I don't think the punishment for foolishness is death. The husband and the gateman are the most responsible for her death. I also don't take lightly the role of the lover, friend, and boatman, all of whom knew she faced death if they didn't help her. I think it is a huge ethical, moral issue that they did not help someone who faced death if they didn't help. Even if you don't approve of her infidelity, don't have any personal feelings for her, or need the money, do you ignore her pleas and essentially sentence her to death?

the battered wife thing is just reading between the lines of the story....

Ok now I get it...I read it as some knuckle dragging domineering clown who wants a sammie and his wife barefoot.

 

[Barb]

Ethics aren't universal.

I beg to differ, Ethics are universal, as they are simply objective. Morals on the other hand are highly subjective to religious, cultural, and / or legal norms.

 

[Esmeralda]

Ethics aren't universal.

I beg to differ, Ethics are universal, as they are simply objective. Morals on the other hand are highly subjective to religious, cultural, and / or legal norms.

Hmmm...interesting. Both morals and ethics are abstract concepts. What is the difference between morals and ethics? What is your definition of each? Are you saying there are absolute rights and wrongs, universally, for everyone?

 

[Barb]

Ethics aren't universal.

I beg to differ, Ethics are universal, as they are simply objective. Morals on the other hand are highly subjective to religious, cultural, and / or legal norms.

Hmmm...interesting. Both morals and ethics are abstract concepts. What is the difference between morals and ethics? What is your definition of each? Are you saying there are absolute rights and wrongs, universally, for everyone?

I am saying there are absolute definitions for words.

And no, MORALS say that

there are absolute rights and wrongs, universally, for everyone

Ethics say to do (optimally) most good while seeing to your best interests, and (minimally) no (or least) harm while seeing to everyone's (including your own) best interests.

Which is a universal standard.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Until the aliens arrive and explain their ideas about ethics and morality, I'd say the best we can hope for is our notions of ethics are relative to us.

Given every other animal on this planet (assuming carnivores) will eat you if it's hungry and thinks it can, our own exceptionalism likes in how we equate death and killing with being 'bad.' But it remains to be seen if evolving to a technologically developed state universally evolves that sort of thinking. An alien may not think twice about wiping us out because relative to them killing and death is not objectionable at all (just as we by the by, don't think raising and slaughtering livestock is.)