[quote]Carter chuckled. "Join the club. It's scary to feel like you're not in control of your own mind... But, I find the contents of one's thoughts aren't nearly as important as the actions they perform. A selfish person who helps the beggar only to make themselves look better, vs someone who wants to help the beggar with all their heart, but passed them by without a word. Which is the better person, would you say? If you were to ask me, it would be the selfish man. His thoughts may not have been pure, but he was still the one who lifted his hand. He was still the one who improved the beggar's life. And if he's doing that, then his thoughts don't really matter, do they?"[/quote] I liked this little section from the book I'm currently working on. It was a fun question being posed, I think. It's very weird to me when someone does a good thing, and then the people around them start to find reasons to undermine what they did. It's, like, they did a good thing, why are we trying to find a reason to hate them for it?

Actions speak louder than words. [b] [/b] Kinda reminds me of this show my wife and I used to watch where a "psychic" would help people connect with loved ones who had passed. Some might ask, was psychic was legit? Was it all a con for fame and money? I'd ask, if people walked away feeling more at peace, did it matter? Was probably cheaper than years of therapy.

I would probably say the situation with the psychic is a [i]little[/i] more of a grey area. Because, if it is a con, then he’s kinda just straight up lying to people and taking their monies. So, this particular situation isn’t so much intention vs action as it is action vs result. Which is still an interesting question to ask, granted, but a separate one. I’m not actually sure what my answer would be, tbh.

That's the thing, it feels shady because in our culture the assumption is it's a lie. In cultures where forms of divination are common practice, it is seen as a service. At any rate, even if it is a lie, does that make it inherently bad? A placebo is a "lie", but would we see a doctor who prescribed it as inherently disengeneous? Does it change depending on if they recieve financial compensation or not? I think that is the heart of the issue. Is the "lie" intended to exploit a hypochondriac (feed them what they want to hear so they keep coming back for more) or cure them (give them what they need to hear so they can have peace of mind and move on)?

I think the important part is actually less about culture, more about what the psychic themselves think. I was using the assumption that it's a lie, because that's the only situation where a question about morality really gets posed. If it's real, and the psychic knows it's real, well, then there's no problem. If it's not real, but the psychic thinks it is, well as far as the psychic knows they're just providing a service, even if they're wrong. It's only when the psychic believes it's a lie that the question of morality comes into play, which is why I was working under that assumption. I suppose that's a good point, though. A lie with good intentions could still be seen as a good thing. I think you potentially start going down a slippery slope with that mindset, though. Like, in the event of the psychic, it's probably not that big of a deal, but what if we scale it up? Like, arguably this is the mindset employed by the Dai Li in Avatar. They lie about the fact that there's a war going on, and do everything they can to cover it up because, it supposedly makes the city a happier, more peaceful place, by making its citizens believe they're living in a time of peace and prosperity. And, perhaps there's just a line that we have to draw when it stops being okay. I'm sure we'd all agree the lengths the Dai Li go to were not okay, but the lying psychic at least wouldn't be unambiguously bad.

In the case of the Dai Li, while the merit of their actions in terms of the populace of Ba Sing Se could be argued, it is clearly harmful to those outside its walls. Turning a blind eye allows evil to prevail elsewhere. Telling someone their late spouse wants them to move on and find happiness... not sure where the harm there lies. Weirdly enough, from a certain perspective, adding the element of monetary compensation almost legitimizes it in a way. Hearing it from a friend could easily be dismissed as them just trying to make you feel better. Coming from a "professional" hits different. And similar to a doctor issuing a placebo, NOT seeking compensation may come across as suspicious. For it to be convincing/effective, they'd need to treat it as any other prescription. That said, you are correct, it's a slipery slope. Those seeking intangible results can be easily exploited. [b] [/b] Interestingly enough, I had a student whose family runs a local temple. The grandfather is actually well renowned for having "the sight", but the two grandsons set to inherit his position do not. Even so, he is "training" them on what to say and how to interpret certain signs. Apparently it was also imperative they maintain the illusion they have inherited his abilities. (despite this, they were around 6 at the time and children are notoriously terrible at keeping secrets).