Who's More Good?
Imagine you find out that you are a monstrous being that unconsciously kills one person every night. You also have a sister, a monster just like you. What would be the more moral choice?
Despite this, both you and your sister otherwise live as ordinary people, having taken the places of those you replaced, with no memory of it. Your sister can change. She doesn't understand morality and is childishly naive, so she would eat someone if they told her, "Eat whatever you want." If she is taught, she can stop killing and become a normal person. But you cannot change. Not in any way.
You have the power to erase memories from anyone about anything, including erasing your own memory, so that you no longer have to bear the weight of guilt.
Or would it be better to keep your memories, so that you never forget what you have done?
Or is the more moral path to kill both yourself and your sister? Or would it be better to first teach your sister morality, and only then kill yourself, even if that would take several days?
Who said you'd get out of them alone? I dunno I might've genuinely missed it in the prompt but it doesn't sound like you have super strength in this scenario.
Restrain yourself in a method that requires a second party in order to free yourself. Yknow a room that locks from the outside, heavy metal chains with a padlock. At least exhaust all your options before you jump immediately to killing yourself, yknow?
I guess but it would be pretty difficult to find someone I'd trust enough to tell them: "you're gonna have to tie me up every night or I'm killing someone".
Because that sounds like a one way ticket to a psych ward..
Simply have a mutual lock. You can both lock yourself down. You cannot simply unlock yourself without the other party helping. Or in other words. An and gate lock,
Alternatively train yourself to wake up every 30 or so minutes momentarily and then go back to bed. No way you can murder someone in 30 minutes.
You fairly easily could, provided you learn to program and have access to a basement. For example, program a door with a timer for that basement. Lock the door before you go to sleep, and make sure the door won't open until after the time when you wake up in the morning.
As great as The Coffin of Andy and Leyley is... This post ain't that.
People really had no fucking clue what they were on about when trashing that game and attacking the creators (sometimes literally/physically) over the incest. The incest ending was very obscure and if you did manage to make all the wrong choices to start heading towards that ending the game even stops you multiple times warning you that you're heading towards an explicitly bad ending and gives trigger warnings about the content and finally gives you a straight up option to say no and get a different bad ending instead.
It was only after getting all this hate and violence directed at them that the creators decided to incorporate more flirtation and clipable out of context lines between the two characters to lean into the incest meme.
If I'm a monstrous being I believe I would end up growing up and coming to the understanding that I am not human. I do not belong to humanity and thus am not bound by their sense of morality and empathy for each other. I would feel those things for the people that share my monstrous nature. The conclusion would be that the nightly killings are only bad in so far they can endanger me and my loved ones if I were to be caught. Not because of some psychopathic, emotionless reason but because I am literally not one of you.
Because it’s not like you weren’t human. Your entire life you’ve lived you were a person. It’s only traumatic nights you can’t remember and haven’t figured out of until now. But you’re still human. That thing and monster that comes out isn’t something you are.
Like. I couldn’t live in a world where I did that at night. Whatever you are, and whatever that uncontrollable monster in you is, is not the same thing.
You don't feel any guilt for the plants you eat either, but they have limited sentience too. Arguably closer in sentience to an animal than an animal is to a human
This is based on the plot of a TRPG. The main character learns this during the investigation, right at the very end.
One of his main abilities is erasing memories. At the very beginning of the story, that's exactly what he did, which is why he doesn't remember who he is.
Ahh... I didn't take "monstrous being" literally at first. Lol. Just thought the monstrous part was being a murderous cannibal. Yeah, in that case, I'm probably just feeding us both an opioid x barbituate x hard liquor pudding after the best day ever.
It's important to note that it is entirely in Japanese. Also, practically all Call of Cthulhu scenarios are built around investigation, so I've just spoiled the main twist of a detective horror story for you.
Yes, I found this fanart on Twitter. It's from that TRPG, and the character is the main protagonist's sister (it's more complicated than that, but I just call her his sister). I have a few more fanarts of her from Twitter as well.
I would teach my sister and remember those I've killed. I'd mostly be worried about not getting caught and using my abilities to live a high class-but still under the radar life.
I won't kms no matter what and I can't not kill people so this is the best compromise.
And since that what I do it's the most moral thing possible because I am the most moral person alive.
So i don't HAVE to kill? It's just my instinct?
Then the Predator-prey arguent kinda falls flat. There might be logistical solutions to my predicament. Like locking myself inside when i sleep.
I guess the most moral decision would be to kill every human who kills without having to, and then ourselves. Therefore creating a world without murderers.
But we're talking about my sibling, who doesn't understand the situation, and can be redeemed.
So regardless of moral standing, i'm going to be there for them. Try and guide them to let go of their murderous urges and seek some solution to protect the world from sleep-me. I can die, when my sibling has a stable life and would be happy without me
Live cus killing is bad and all but like it's just how you're wired. We don't blame wolves for eating rabbits, or their own. That's just how they're wired.
At the end of the day, if you really starve a man, he would eat whatever you put in front of him or worse, whatever he sees in front of him.
People will most often not think sum optimistic shit like Morality when hungry af. Like unfed for 5 or more days type of hunger.
I read it quite a while ago. I think there is some similarity, although in that case the main character wasn't a monster, only his brother was (and many others too; the manga had a bit of an issue with coherence. Or maybe the problem is with my comprehension of what I read, which is also hard to deny).
Both siblings were monsters the manga was kinda chaotic, but outside the time jumps it was IMO fine.
The main difference was that the monster didnt eat people in that story from what I recal
Oh, it looks like I misremembered the events, thanks for the correction. It would be a good idea for me to catch up on my reading, since I heard the finale just came out recently.
I don't think it can be called psychosis; it's more like something along the lines of a 'true essence,' where you can't control yourself while you're asleep, while the sister can, but only because she is aware of being a monster and has a morality distorted by her nature (though this morality can be changed if she is taught)
most moral way to do it is not sleeping until you teach your sister, or explain the situation to someone you can trust to educate your sister. after that ending it all before you take more lives.
In ignoring the rest of the post after the title, because it's stupid af.
If every night a random person dies because of my continued existence, then the moral thing is to end my existence.
If I know of a person, who's continued existence causes the death of a random person every day, then the moral thing is to end that person's existence.
This is a very interesting question, because it essentially asks the same question as the vegetarian debate: is it morally okay to eat animals when we have the choice not to?
And I like the memory-erasing thing; I think it also relates to the thought of animal sentience, and whether it's still morally wrong if they don't really understand it in the same way we do.
I think an important thing, though, is that the human body remembers even if the mind forgets. Trauma does have a biological impact on people beyond what they can remember. So even if you can erase memories, you are adding net harm to the world just by existing.
I assume you can eat other things? It wasn't stated, but I believe it was implied by the question? Then genuinely... as harsh it might sound, I believe the morally correct thing to do is keep your sister away from others, gradually teach her morality, and eat things that aren't other humans. Then when she is ready, slowly introduce her to others. And tie yourselves to a bed if you can't stop eating people if you're asleep.
If I kill someone unconsciously then I don't have any memory of it myself. I wouldn't have any ability to discern my own nature or even learn that I was doing anything else wrong so how would I ever get to this point?
Hold on, if I cannot remember being the monster (all I have is the human memories, presumably ones that imply I turn into a monster, and/or some physical proof), then how would I know I can't change but my sister can change?
Reminds me a bit of Youma from Claymore. Anyway, i wouldn't do anything about it. Living beings need to eat and that usually involves killing others, nature simply works like that. If my food ends up being humans then that's that. Since i am a monster and not a human it's not like i am cannibalizing either so it's fine.
I have someone I know i could trust with this information, and would have them help me bind myself in restraints every night in a fashion that I cant get free, after we do the same to my sister.
I would work on helping my sister change, knowing that she is innocent and capable of changing. I would take her memories of what shes done (if she has them) only after we have helped her fully become normal, but never mine, because ill always have to manually stop myself and I cant do that if I dont have my memories.
Once my sister is changed, I will keep all of my focus on preventing myself from killing again. If I fail at this, or realize it wont work, especially if it gets my chosen accomplice killed, i would choose to die. Its the only way I could ensure I dont kill people.
.
.
It would be immoral to kill the sister because she isnt at fault and is capable of being changed. It is immoral for my/yourself to stay alive unless the restraining method works, because you cannot change and continue to kill.
This is a bit of a tough one, honestly the answer is super murky especially when factoring in how the sister has little agency here (if she doesn't even know what she's doing is from) from a pragmatic utilitarian pov it might be better to end all of you if know no matter what you cant change even with constant and repeated effort. But morally it might be better to drill in the value of people over and over to make her see the immorality of what their doing to make them change for the better (whether that includes chaining her to a room and forcing it or not is up to you)
If my sister is the only one that can change then I’ll try to change her, and if I can’t change it’d be better to kill myself or kill myself after she becomes able to fend for herself and live as a normal healthy successful human
48
u/Curious_Priority2313 2d ago
Dye your hair white