My biggest problem with this conversation is writing an alien mind. How do you understand a species that doesn't use any sense that we know of, they think in a drastically different way then humans or even have a different societal systems. It is egotistical to assume a different species are just like humans. It is these differences that make writing fantasy fun because why else have other species?
There's no assumption that we're talking about humans at all, so there's no assumptions that a different species is just like humans. As to different societal standards, that's not an issue you have to look to fantasy races for. You don't assume a person lacks moral worth because they have different societal standards, and thus they have culpability. The context still matters and the goblin still matters.
Not just for you here, but I keep coming back to what about the ethical consideration for the people the goblins and orcs are harming?
Some people who are molested as children grow up to molest other children. If we condemn that act are we blaming the victim because their earlier victimhood led them to this action? Are we immoral for trying to stop them from causing further harm in the future? What if we lived in a place with no law enforcement and no judicial recourse? Would it be moral to use force against said molester? Would it be immoral to talk it out with them if they then ignored your words and continued in their behavior?
What if its not a child molester but an orc, or a band of orcs, who repeatedly and reliably raid, murder and steal from peaceful people? Isn't the moral thing to do to intervene? And in a lawless world isn't violence a viable answer?
Maybe deep down these classes of humanoids are redeemable. Unless and until they actually change their behavior in my view the immoral action is to empathize and appease.
Nothing about considering the goblin morally valuable requires we stop considering anyone else morally valuable. When a victim becomes a victimizer that earlier victimization is a mitigating factor in their culpability, not an exculpating factor. It doesn't change weather or not their victimizer was a person.
You seem to be assuming someone is saying you shouldn't intervene. No one is saying that. You don't have to dismiss the moral value of an individual to stop them from doing something. You also don't have to stop empathizing with them. Similarly, no one is saying you have to appease them.
Not just for you here, but I keep coming back to what about the ethical consideration for the people the goblins and orcs are harming?
Some people who are molested as children grow up to molest other children. If we condemn that act are we blaming the victim because their earlier victimhood led them to this action? Are we immoral for trying to stop them from causing further harm in the future? What if we lived in a place with no law enforcement and no judicial recourse? Would it be moral to use force against said molester? Would it be immoral to talk it out with them if they then ignored your words and continued in their behavior?
What if its not a child molester but an orc, or a band of orcs, who repeatedly and reliably raid, murder and steal from peaceful people? Isn't the moral thing to do to intervene? And in a lawless world isn't violence a viable answer?
Maybe deep down these classes of humanoids are redeemable. Unless and until they actually change their behavior in my view the immoral action is to empathize and appease.
Nothing about considering the goblin morally valuable requires we stop considering anyone else morally valuable. When a victim becomes a victimizer that earlier victimization is a mitigating factor in their culpability, not an exculpating factor. It doesn't change weather or not their victimizer was a person.
You seem to be assuming someone is saying you shouldn't intervene. No one is saying that. You don't have to dismiss the moral value of an individual to stop them from doing something. You also don't have to stop empathizing with them. Similarly, no one is saying you have to appease them.
What are you saying then? Practically speaking how would your characters respond to a band of orcs raiding a village?
I guess the issue you are having is that you are talking about practical concerns, where as the rest of us are talking about moral concerns.
You respond to the practical concern by defending the village. Not an issue.
The moral concern is that these are still people attacking the village. That means you're only justified in harming them to the degree required for defense. After that, any which remain alive would be arrested, as opposed to killed. You treat a bunch of orcs raiding the village like a bunch of humans raiding the village. The transgression is the raiding, not being orcs.
Not just for you here, but I keep coming back to what about the ethical consideration for the people the goblins and orcs are harming?
Some people who are molested as children grow up to molest other children. If we condemn that act are we blaming the victim because their earlier victimhood led them to this action? Are we immoral for trying to stop them from causing further harm in the future? What if we lived in a place with no law enforcement and no judicial recourse? Would it be moral to use force against said molester? Would it be immoral to talk it out with them if they then ignored your words and continued in their behavior?
What if its not a child molester but an orc, or a band of orcs, who repeatedly and reliably raid, murder and steal from peaceful people? Isn't the moral thing to do to intervene? And in a lawless world isn't violence a viable answer?
Maybe deep down these classes of humanoids are redeemable. Unless and until they actually change their behavior in my view the immoral action is to empathize and appease.
Nothing about considering the goblin morally valuable requires we stop considering anyone else morally valuable. When a victim becomes a victimizer that earlier victimization is a mitigating factor in their culpability, not an exculpating factor. It doesn't change weather or not their victimizer was a person.
You seem to be assuming someone is saying you shouldn't intervene. No one is saying that. You don't have to dismiss the moral value of an individual to stop them from doing something. You also don't have to stop empathizing with them. Similarly, no one is saying you have to appease them.
What are you saying then? Practically speaking how would your characters respond to a band of orcs raiding a village?
I'm not BunniRabbi, but I figured that it was worth me answering this.
If I was a player, I would kill them if they are killing people. If they were just stealing stuff, I would use nonlethal weapon attacks and spells and make sure they don't steal anything (unless they were stealing from people that oppressed them). Then, depending if they deserve it, I would help the orcs (possibly giving them money, weapons, or tools, maybe even hunting food for them, etc).
How is this so hard to comprehend? If it was a group of elves, or dwarves, or goliaths raiding the village, I would do the same thing. React to them based on their actions, not their race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It doesn't matter if a goblin "has a family they want to return to", if they are raiding your village because they want to take your food. If goblins can't feed themselves without robbing other settlements including your culture's settlements, they are evil.
That's absolutely false. Remember the Irish Potato Famine? The reason they couldn't feed themselves was because the British were taking away every non-potato food that they could produce, so when the potatoes started to die from a blight, they started starving to death. Their starvation was at the hands of an oppressor, so it would have been justified for them to steal food from people who have more, especially if they can survive without the stolen food and/or if those you're stealing the food from are your oppressors. (I'm not saying that these are the circumstances that happened in the campaign, I'm just saying that there are definitely circumstances where the stealing of food would be justified.)
If a party is traveling and a bunch of goblins are approaching with the weapons out ready to initiate a fight, you are free to assume they are going to attack you. The only likely conflict would occur if you happened on a goblin encampment. If a culture is camping, it is fair to ask, are they just traveling from one place to another or are they maneuvering for a raid/attack.
So, by your logic, if a soldier is carrying a firearm ready to shoot anyone that attacks him, anyone who comes across them is morally allowed to attack them out of nowhere. Or a hunter, for that matter. What if the goblins were carrying weapons to hunt wild animals? What if they were going to attack an enemy settlement that provoked them, and they wanted to be ready for an ambush?
Again, not saying that this happened, I'm just disproving your blanket statements.
How do you wish to handle it? You could attempt to sneak by them, which doesn't solve the riddle, but might get you past the risk. Do you simply figure if you attack then you have the initiative, and that is better for the party? Or do you attempt to initiate communications with the goblins? Very risky. Or can you ask for guidance through an Augury? You could attempt to capture a sentry and question him. That isn't usually a reliable negotiation tactic, and it will automatically put you in a bad light with the goblins. Heck, can you even speak goblin?
All goblins can speak Common, based on the monster stat blocks and racial stats (again, that is dependent on if the DM changed it, but that seems fairly uncommon from my experience and from that of others I know). It is always morally superior to talk before attacking when approaching a group of other people who have done nothing to aggress you.
We simply don't agree on the basic assumptions that go into playing this game. Let's leave it at that and have fun at each of our tables in a manner that suits our groups.
This is a huge cop out. The only "assumptions" I made about the game were as follows:
Crime can be justified (as it can be in real life, like the example I provided about when the government is causing you to starve to death during a Potato Famine).
Injustices can be committed against goblins. If goblins were off living in their own village, minding their own business and not hurting or even bothering anyone, it would be an evil act to just randomly go in and kill them all "because goblins are supposed to be evil." Evil is an act, not something you're born with. If none of them are doing evil, slaughtering them is evil.
People walk around with weapons when hunting.
People attack other people in wars.
The Monster Manual giving all goblins both the Goblin and Common languages are the same (in which case you would be the outlier).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I guess the issue you are having is that you are talking about practical concerns, where as the rest of us are talking about moral concerns.
You respond to the practical concern by defending the village. Not an issue.
The moral concern is that these are still people attacking the village. That means you're only justified in harming them to the degree required for defense. After that, any which remain alive would be arrested, as opposed to killed.
In my mind the moral is tied up in the practical, otherwise we're just talking about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. In that light leaving them alone when they have a long and established track record of acting in aggressive and destructive ways seems a little naive. Plus is arresting them really an option? Are you going to go in and yell citizens arrest or flash a badge and think they are going to care? Are you going to haul them off to a large city days or weeks travel away to hand them off to a court that cares enough about an orc to put them in jail rather than executing them?
You treat a bunch of orcs raiding the village like a bunch of humans raiding the village.
Humans are behaviorally diverse, orcs and goblins reliably act in harmful ways. This is sort of my main point, these types of people aren't psychologically and culturally the same, some are more wicked by the standards of civilized and peaceful people.
Maybe I haven't gotten this point across very well, but I thought that was part of my point all along. Maybe I'm more willing to judge them based on repeated and established behaviors, I don't think its being racist towards orcs to think of them as being violent if in fact they are violent. If they were attempting to be farmers but conditions were causing them to starve and they stole food to live I might think differently, but that's not what they are doing. And two, even if they were starving it might be understandable but I still don't think it would be morally acceptable to kill someone else and take their food.
I guess the issue you are having is that you are talking about practical concerns, where as the rest of us are talking about moral concerns.
You respond to the practical concern by defending the village. Not an issue.
The moral concern is that these are still people attacking the village. That means you're only justified in harming them to the degree required for defense. After that, any which remain alive would be arrested, as opposed to killed.
In my mind the moral is tied up in the practical, otherwise we're just talking about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. In that light leaving them alone when they have a long and established track record of acting in aggressive and destructive ways seems a little naive. Plus is arresting them really an option? Are you going to go in and yell citizens arrest or flash a badge and think they are going to care? Are you going to haul them off to a large city days or weeks travel away to hand them off to a court that cares enough about an orc to put them in jail rather than executing them?
You treat a bunch of orcs raiding the village like a bunch of humans raiding the village.
Humans are behaviorally diverse, orcs and goblins reliably act in harmful ways. This is sort of my main point, these types of people aren't psychologically and culturally the same, some are more wicked by the standards of civilized and peaceful people.
Maybe I haven't gotten this point across very well, but I thought that was part of my point all along. Maybe I'm more willing to judge them based on repeated and established behaviors, I don't think its being racist towards orcs to think of them as being violent if in fact they are violent. If they were attempting to be farmers but conditions were causing them to starve and they stole food to live I might think differently, but that's not what they are doing. And two, even if they were starving it might be understandable but I still don't think it would be morally acceptable to kill someone else and take their food.
We seem to have fixated on orcs and goblins vs humans ignoring the other mystical races such as Dragonborn, tiefling, tabaxi, Assamir etc
I guess the issue you are having is that you are talking about practical concerns, where as the rest of us are talking about moral concerns.
You respond to the practical concern by defending the village. Not an issue.
The moral concern is that these are still people attacking the village. That means you're only justified in harming them to the degree required for defense. After that, any which remain alive would be arrested, as opposed to killed.
In my mind the moral is tied up in the practical, otherwise we're just talking about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. In that light leaving them alone when they have a long and established track record of acting in aggressive and destructive ways seems a little naive. Plus is arresting them really an option? Are you going to go in and yell citizens arrest or flash a badge and think they are going to care? Are you going to haul them off to a large city days or weeks travel away to hand them off to a court that cares enough about an orc to put them in jail rather than executing them?
You treat a bunch of orcs raiding the village like a bunch of humans raiding the village.
Humans are behaviorally diverse, orcs and goblins reliably act in harmful ways. This is sort of my main point, these types of people aren't psychologically and culturally the same, some are more wicked by the standards of civilized and peaceful people.
Maybe I haven't gotten this point across very well, but I thought that was part of my point all along. Maybe I'm more willing to judge them based on repeated and established behaviors, I don't think its being racist towards orcs to think of them as being violent if in fact they are violent. If they were attempting to be farmers but conditions were causing them to starve and they stole food to live I might think differently, but that's not what they are doing. And two, even if they were starving it might be understandable but I still don't think it would be morally acceptable to kill someone else and take their food.
If you are judging an orc based on his own repeated and established behaviors, that is fine. If you're judging him based on the repeated and established behaviors of other orcs, and if orcs are a race, then that is racism.
Attempting to redefine them as a species is as attempt to dodge that question.
If you are judging an orc based on his own repeated and established behaviors, that is fine. If you're judging him based on the repeated and established behaviors of other orcs, and if orcs are a race, then that is racism.
Attempting to redefine them as a species is as attempt to dodge that question.
There's a short fable that kind of sums up my view. "A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and then begins to swim. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature."
Something like 3% of the human population are psychopaths and sociopaths, many are simply born that way. If a human being can be born like that why can't an entire fantasy race have it in their natures to be more psychopathic? Maybe it is technically racist to judge another orc by the behavior of other orcs, but if 90% of orc males (which accounts for nearly 100% of the interactions with outside groups) are psychopathic I guess I'd rather my character be racist against orcs than foolishly allow them to continue their destructive behaviors against innocents.
"In my mind the moral is tied up in the practical, ..." Vastly untrue. One of the first things I have to teach my students in Ethics the distinction between a moral concern and a practical concern. Otherwise you end up conflating what is moral and what is practical constantly.
"In that light leaving them alone when they have a long and established track record of acting in aggressive and destructive ways seems a little naive." The same thing has been said about virtually every marginalized human culture. Part of the problem with depicting fantasy races this way is it makes statements like that seem normal. Understanding that you are citing a practical concern as if it were a moral concern is necessary. Be on the look out for when you try to use the same reasoning in real life.
"Plus is arresting them really an option?" The moral obligation exists whenever the option exists, so the only relevant place for that concern is when the option exists. Capability limits culpability.
"Are you going to go in and yell citizens arrest or flash a badge and think they are going to care?" Have you never seen it done? IC or OOC? If the answer to both is no, that might explain the difference in your attitude.
"Are you going to haul them off to a large city days or weeks travel away..." You've never played that scenario? It's kind of a plot trope.
"...to hand them off to a court that cares enough about an orc to put them in jail rather than executing them?" The flaws of one group don't justify one's own.
"Humans are behaviorally diverse, orcs and goblins reliably act in harmful ways." That's a circular argument. We're discussing weather or not they should be presented that way. Don't make a premise in your argument the conclusion of your argument. Also, you're again repeating a reasoning that has been used against human groups in the past. 'But now it's ok because ______', is likewise something used to rationalize that in real life.
" If you are judging an orc based on his own repeated and established behaviors, that is fine. If you're judging him based on the repeated and established behaviors of other orcs, and if orcs are a race, then that is racism.
Attempting to redefine them as a species is as attempt to dodge that question." And really, the issue isn't, 'is it racism?', as much as 'is it bigotry?', because the exact form of bigotry (racism or specism) is less relevant to the underlying question; "Is it immoral?"
Maybe bringing the moral question more directly into examples from our world would be helpful. If you were someone living in an area where the Mongols or the Crusaders invaded and you spent your energy defending them rather than defending their victims I do believe you would be taking the less moral position.
"There's a short fable that kind of sums up my view. "A scorpion...//... in my nature." "
The current Dali Lama wrote an article about that fable. Apparently people think it's from the Buddhist theological tradition. Besides pointing out that it isn't from Buddhist theology, he also argued that it is against Buddhist values. The bulk of the article is on that, and as such not really relevant to this discussion, except that he also pointed out that it supports the view of biological essentialism. Biological Essentialism is the idea that a person's actions derive from their biological disposition. He explained that because we are inclined to accept that different animals have different natures, and because the story is presented as a parable and thus a metaphor for human activity, it implies that we should use this as a guideline for how to interact with people. He then went on to associate this with racism, nationalism and the caste system.
"If a human being can be born like that why can't an entire fantasy race have it in their natures to be more psychopathic?" They can. No one is saying the idea is implausible. The issue is that using that argument is like pointing out that the scorpion is biologically different than the frog. It gets conflated with a justification for racism.
"Maybe it is technically racist to judge another orc by the behavior of other orcs, but if 90% of orc males (which accounts for nearly 100% of the interactions with outside groups) are psychopathic I guess I'd rather my character be racist against orcs than foolishly allow them to continue their destructive behaviors against innocents." Again, you're conflating a moral concern with a practical one.
Folks, I would like to ask that you create a new thread if we are going to discuss the morality of attacking various monsters in D&D.
The title of the thread is "Should Different Races be Thought of as Species"
Unfortunately the actual question in the OP turned out to be something more involved.
I felt I answered the question. Yes, different species should be called different species instead of different races.
Let's start a new thread.
We're still talking about what they should be called. If you think the question was definitively answered, then I think you've ignored almost all of the content of this thread, including responses directed at you. In particular, though I would have to go back to be sure, it does seem as if more people have disagreed with your response than agreed.
Maybe bringing the moral question more directly into examples from our world would be helpful. If you were someone living in an area where the Mongols or the Crusaders invaded and you spent your energy defending them rather than defending their victims I do believe you would be taking the less moral position.
The question isn't which is the more moral position, but if an individual within a given group is of moral concern equal to a human by default. When you have moral concerns conflict, such that it is not possible to observe them all, it is reasonable that you must adhere to the greater of them (you defend the village). This doesn't mean that the lesser concern disappears. It just means that you aren't beholden to it until you have the option to act on it again. Self defense in lethal situations relies on that same reasoning in general.
Again, you're conflating a moral concern with a practical one.
I don't see how you can divorce them. If you're not applying your moral frame to the actual world we're just talking about some ivory tower ideas, they don't mean anything.
"There's a short fable that kind of sums up my view. "A scorpion...//... in my nature." "
The current Dali Lama wrote an article about that fable. Apparently people think it's from the Buddhist theological tradition. Besides pointing out that it isn't from Buddhist theology, he also argued that it is against Buddhist values. The bulk of the article is on that, and as such not really relevant to this discussion, except that he also pointed out that it supports the view of biological essentialism. Biological Essentialism is the idea that a person's actions derive from their biological disposition. He explained that because we are inclined to accept that different animals have different natures, and because the story is presented as a parable and thus a metaphor for human activity, it implies that we should use this as a guideline for how to interact with people. He then went on to associate this with racism, nationalism and the caste system.
I think at this point we've pretty clearly demonstrated that race is a social construct and human beings are all biologically the same. I adopt that understanding into my worldview and move forward. If that fable is applied to human beings, I agree, that is racist. I've been arguing the whole time that I think the fantasy races are better thought of as differing species with differing natures.
Regarding biological essentialism, its long been the the thought that humans are a combination of nature and nurture. Saying that part of our actions derive from our biology is true, look into the research on babies (the baby lab) and the genetic influence on personality. If some people think that different human ethnicities and cultures are biological in origin they are ignorant and I don't want to build my world view influenced by what ignorant people believe.
Again, you're conflating a moral concern with a practical one.
I don't see how you can divorce them. If you're not applying your moral frame to the actual world we're just talking about some ivory tower ideas, they don't mean anything.
That distinction isn't the same thing as not applying your moral frame to the actual world.
Practical vs moral is important to understanding practical culpability vs moral culpability. For example, if you were to tell someone not to walk down a certain alleyway at night, that's a practical concern. Confuse that with a moral concern and you end up blaming the victim for being robbed. That's what happens if you don't divorce them. Apply that here.
There's no assumption that we're talking about humans at all, so there's no assumptions that a different species is just like humans. As to different societal standards, that's not an issue you have to look to fantasy races for. You don't assume a person lacks moral worth because they have different societal standards, and thus they have culpability. The context still matters and the goblin still matters.
Nothing about considering the goblin morally valuable requires we stop considering anyone else morally valuable. When a victim becomes a victimizer that earlier victimization is a mitigating factor in their culpability, not an exculpating factor. It doesn't change weather or not their victimizer was a person.
You seem to be assuming someone is saying you shouldn't intervene. No one is saying that. You don't have to dismiss the moral value of an individual to stop them from doing something. You also don't have to stop empathizing with them. Similarly, no one is saying you have to appease them.
What are you saying then? Practically speaking how would your characters respond to a band of orcs raiding a village?
I guess the issue you are having is that you are talking about practical concerns, where as the rest of us are talking about moral concerns.
You respond to the practical concern by defending the village. Not an issue.
The moral concern is that these are still people attacking the village. That means you're only justified in harming them to the degree required for defense. After that, any which remain alive would be arrested, as opposed to killed. You treat a bunch of orcs raiding the village like a bunch of humans raiding the village. The transgression is the raiding, not being orcs.
I'm not BunniRabbi, but I figured that it was worth me answering this.
If I was a player, I would kill them if they are killing people. If they were just stealing stuff, I would use nonlethal weapon attacks and spells and make sure they don't steal anything (unless they were stealing from people that oppressed them). Then, depending if they deserve it, I would help the orcs (possibly giving them money, weapons, or tools, maybe even hunting food for them, etc).
How is this so hard to comprehend? If it was a group of elves, or dwarves, or goliaths raiding the village, I would do the same thing. React to them based on their actions, not their race.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is a huge cop out. The only "assumptions" I made about the game were as follows:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Is it just me or do posts on this thread keep disappearing and reappearing?
Folks, I would like to ask that you create a new thread if we are going to discuss the morality of attacking various monsters in D&D.
The title of the thread is "Should Different Races be Thought of as Species"
Unfortunately the actual question in the OP turned out to be something more involved.
I felt I answered the question. Yes, different species should be called different species instead of different races.
Let's start a new thread.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In my mind the moral is tied up in the practical, otherwise we're just talking about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. In that light leaving them alone when they have a long and established track record of acting in aggressive and destructive ways seems a little naive. Plus is arresting them really an option? Are you going to go in and yell citizens arrest or flash a badge and think they are going to care? Are you going to haul them off to a large city days or weeks travel away to hand them off to a court that cares enough about an orc to put them in jail rather than executing them?
Humans are behaviorally diverse, orcs and goblins reliably act in harmful ways. This is sort of my main point, these types of people aren't psychologically and culturally the same, some are more wicked by the standards of civilized and peaceful people.
Maybe I haven't gotten this point across very well, but I thought that was part of my point all along. Maybe I'm more willing to judge them based on repeated and established behaviors, I don't think its being racist towards orcs to think of them as being violent if in fact they are violent. If they were attempting to be farmers but conditions were causing them to starve and they stole food to live I might think differently, but that's not what they are doing. And two, even if they were starving it might be understandable but I still don't think it would be morally acceptable to kill someone else and take their food.
We seem to have fixated on orcs and goblins vs humans ignoring the other mystical races such as Dragonborn, tiefling, tabaxi, Assamir etc
If you are judging an orc based on his own repeated and established behaviors, that is fine. If you're judging him based on the repeated and established behaviors of other orcs, and if orcs are a race, then that is racism.
Attempting to redefine them as a species is as attempt to dodge that question.
There's a short fable that kind of sums up my view. "A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and then begins to swim. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature."
Something like 3% of the human population are psychopaths and sociopaths, many are simply born that way. If a human being can be born like that why can't an entire fantasy race have it in their natures to be more psychopathic? Maybe it is technically racist to judge another orc by the behavior of other orcs, but if 90% of orc males (which accounts for nearly 100% of the interactions with outside groups) are psychopathic I guess I'd rather my character be racist against orcs than foolishly allow them to continue their destructive behaviors against innocents.
"In my mind the moral is tied up in the practical, ..."
Vastly untrue. One of the first things I have to teach my students in Ethics the distinction between a moral concern and a practical concern. Otherwise you end up conflating what is moral and what is practical constantly.
"In that light leaving them alone when they have a long and established track record of acting in aggressive and destructive ways seems a little naive."
The same thing has been said about virtually every marginalized human culture. Part of the problem with depicting fantasy races this way is it makes statements like that seem normal. Understanding that you are citing a practical concern as if it were a moral concern is necessary. Be on the look out for when you try to use the same reasoning in real life.
"Plus is arresting them really an option?"
The moral obligation exists whenever the option exists, so the only relevant place for that concern is when the option exists. Capability limits culpability.
"Are you going to go in and yell citizens arrest or flash a badge and think they are going to care?"
Have you never seen it done? IC or OOC? If the answer to both is no, that might explain the difference in your attitude.
"Are you going to haul them off to a large city days or weeks travel away..."
You've never played that scenario? It's kind of a plot trope.
"...to hand them off to a court that cares enough about an orc to put them in jail rather than executing them?"
The flaws of one group don't justify one's own.
"Humans are behaviorally diverse, orcs and goblins reliably act in harmful ways."
That's a circular argument. We're discussing weather or not they should be presented that way. Don't make a premise in your argument the conclusion of your argument. Also, you're again repeating a reasoning that has been used against human groups in the past. 'But now it's ok because ______', is likewise something used to rationalize that in real life.
" If you are judging an orc based on his own repeated and established behaviors, that is fine. If you're judging him based on the repeated and established behaviors of other orcs, and if orcs are a race, then that is racism.
Attempting to redefine them as a species is as attempt to dodge that question."
And really, the issue isn't, 'is it racism?', as much as 'is it bigotry?', because the exact form of bigotry (racism or specism) is less relevant to the underlying question; "Is it immoral?"
Maybe bringing the moral question more directly into examples from our world would be helpful. If you were someone living in an area where the Mongols or the Crusaders invaded and you spent your energy defending them rather than defending their victims I do believe you would be taking the less moral position.
"There's a short fable that kind of sums up my view. "A scorpion...//... in my nature." "
The current Dali Lama wrote an article about that fable. Apparently people think it's from the Buddhist theological tradition. Besides pointing out that it isn't from Buddhist theology, he also argued that it is against Buddhist values. The bulk of the article is on that, and as such not really relevant to this discussion, except that he also pointed out that it supports the view of biological essentialism. Biological Essentialism is the idea that a person's actions derive from their biological disposition. He explained that because we are inclined to accept that different animals have different natures, and because the story is presented as a parable and thus a metaphor for human activity, it implies that we should use this as a guideline for how to interact with people. He then went on to associate this with racism, nationalism and the caste system.
"If a human being can be born like that why can't an entire fantasy race have it in their natures to be more psychopathic?"
They can. No one is saying the idea is implausible. The issue is that using that argument is like pointing out that the scorpion is biologically different than the frog. It gets conflated with a justification for racism.
"Maybe it is technically racist to judge another orc by the behavior of other orcs, but if 90% of orc males (which accounts for nearly 100% of the interactions with outside groups) are psychopathic I guess I'd rather my character be racist against orcs than foolishly allow them to continue their destructive behaviors against innocents."
Again, you're conflating a moral concern with a practical one.
We're still talking about what they should be called. If you think the question was definitively answered, then I think you've ignored almost all of the content of this thread, including responses directed at you. In particular, though I would have to go back to be sure, it does seem as if more people have disagreed with your response than agreed.
The question isn't which is the more moral position, but if an individual within a given group is of moral concern equal to a human by default. When you have moral concerns conflict, such that it is not possible to observe them all, it is reasonable that you must adhere to the greater of them (you defend the village). This doesn't mean that the lesser concern disappears. It just means that you aren't beholden to it until you have the option to act on it again. Self defense in lethal situations relies on that same reasoning in general.
I don't see how you can divorce them. If you're not applying your moral frame to the actual world we're just talking about some ivory tower ideas, they don't mean anything.
I think at this point we've pretty clearly demonstrated that race is a social construct and human beings are all biologically the same. I adopt that understanding into my worldview and move forward. If that fable is applied to human beings, I agree, that is racist. I've been arguing the whole time that I think the fantasy races are better thought of as differing species with differing natures.
Regarding biological essentialism, its long been the the thought that humans are a combination of nature and nurture. Saying that part of our actions derive from our biology is true, look into the research on babies (the baby lab) and the genetic influence on personality. If some people think that different human ethnicities and cultures are biological in origin they are ignorant and I don't want to build my world view influenced by what ignorant people believe.
That distinction isn't the same thing as not applying your moral frame to the actual world.
Practical vs moral is important to understanding practical culpability vs moral culpability. For example, if you were to tell someone not to walk down a certain alleyway at night, that's a practical concern. Confuse that with a moral concern and you end up blaming the victim for being robbed. That's what happens if you don't divorce them. Apply that here.