Work Text:
One year before Wei Wuxian is fated to return to this world, a genie appears before Lan Wangji and tells him the following:
"In exactly one year, a mentally ill young man will annihilate his own soul to summon Wei Ying, courtesy name Wuxian, back into the land of the living. This man's decision to do so will be driven in part by the abuse he faces from his family due to his homosexuality and social disgrace, and in part by the deliberate manipulations of a third party. He will summon Wei Wuxian's soul into his body in order to entreat Wei Wuxian to exact violent vengeance for him.
Right now, you have the option of rescuing this young man, Mo Xuanyu, from his situation. Simply ask it of me, and I will immediately use my magic to remove Mo Xuanyu from his abusive family and into a kind and loving household that accepts him as one of their own. As an omniscient genie, I guarantee to you that if you choose this course of action, Mo Xuanyu will recover, repent for his past mistakes, and live a long and happy life. However, as an omniscient genie, I also guarantee to you that no one else will summon the soul of Wei Wuxian back into the land of the living--in other words, if you choose this option, Wei Wuxian will remain dead.
Right now, you also have the option of doing nothing. If you choose to do nothing, then I guarantee to you as an omniscient genie that in exactly one year, Mo Xuanyu will annihilate his soul and Wei Wuxian will return to the land of the living. This will not damage Wei Wuxian's soul or his reincarnation prospects in any fashion."
"Now that I have given you this information," says the genie, "what will you do?"
---
After a long silence, Lan Wangji finally whispers: "why did you have to tell me this?"
The genie laughs.
"If I had gotten through this one year without you telling me anything," Lan Wangji continues, "then at the end of the year I would have my happiness restored to me, and I would not have committed any moral wrongdoings. And yet, by giving me this information in advance, you have destroyed this for me. You have forced me to choose between one or the other."
"If I choose to save this Mo Xuanyu, then I would be destroying my happiness with my own two hands: I would live for the rest of my life with the knowledge that I could have been reunited with Wei Ying, yet that I removed that possibility of my own volition. But if I choose to do nothing, then I would be guilty of the sin of allowing someone to die through inaction, when I both knew they were going to die and had the means to easily save them. Even with Wei Ying by my side, I would live for the rest of my life knowing that my happiness was knowingly bought with the suffering of another person."
"Can you not argue that allowing Wei Wuxian to come back to life is also a moral decision?" asks the genie. "That Wei Wuxian deserves a second life moreso than Mo Xuanyu deserves his first? Wei Wuxian is a morally upright hero; Mo Xuanyu is bitter and vengeful enough to curse his entire family to die."
Lan Wangji shakes his head. "Wei Ying deserves to live, and the fact that he died the way he did is a great injustice. However, lives cannot be justly exchanged for other lives. Even if Wei Ying has a more moral stalwart character than this Mo Xuanyu, that does not make it acceptable to sacrifice Mo Xuanyu to revive Wei Ying. From a deontological point of view, 'humanity' itself--every human being's autonomy and inherent worth as a person--must be respected: humanity must never be used as a mere means unto an end, and must always be treated as an ends unto itself. Whatever third party you mentioned that manipulated Mo Xuanyu into performing this ritual has committed a grave moral wrongdoing, as in doing so he has used and dehumanized Mo Xuanyu as a mere tool for his own ends."
Continues Lan Wangji: "Now, the state of affairs in which Wei Ying is returned to the world of the living is one I deeply desire. However, that precisely is what also leads me to conclude that, if I were to allow Mo Xuanyu's manipulated suicide to happen, I will have committed a moral sin as well. If I knowingly allowed this third party to manipulate Mo Xuanyu into performing this suicidal ritual, simply because this third party's actions result in an outcome I personally desire, I would be complicit in Mo Xuanyu being used as a mere means to an end; I, too, would be guilty of disregarding Mo Xuanyu's humanity for my own ends."
"But can you not still argue that allowing Wei Wuxian to come back to life is a moral decision, using a more utilitarian approach?" asks the genie. "From a utilitarian point of view, the results of both choices are largely the same: one person dies and one person lives. However, given Wei Wuxian's genius, capacity for revolutionizing inventions, and tendency towards actively resisting injustice, a revived Wei Wuxian would almost doubtlessly have a greater positive long-term impact on the world than a rescued Mo Xuanyu. In that case, would it not be moral of you to choose the action that results in greater long-term positive results?"
"I do not subscribe to utilitarian moral ethics," Lan Wangji says. "Nor do i think it is morally acceptable to exchange the life of a less 'useful' person for that of a more 'useful' person, even if 'useful' here indicates a usefulness towards improving the lot of society as a whole. I have already explained why, from a deontological point of view, it is unacceptable to exchange lives for other lives, even if the latter lives are perceived to be superior. Furthermore, when one acts, one should act as if their action will become universal moral law. If I were to allow Mo Xuanyu to be sacrificed in order to revive Wei Ying, based on the reasoning that Wei Ying is more useful to humanity, then the maxim 'it is morally acceptable to allow less useful people to be sacrificed for more useful people' must become true for everyone, not just me. However, the state of affairs produced by such a maxim becoming universal law would be unacceptable--people would regularly get sacrificed left and right--and would also be logically self-contradictory--as it would become mathematically impossible to calculate someone's 'usefulness.' Thus, such a maxim cannot be accepted, and such reasoning about usefulness is not acceptable to me."
Says the genie: "With the way you are currently speaking, one would imagine that you are discussing the notion of actively sacrificing Mo Xuanyu yourself, rather than the notion of allowing Mo Xuanyu to kill himself through your inaction. But that isn't the situation at hand: the choice of allowing Mo Xuanyu to die is not one of [action], but rather [inaction]. You are not directly killing Mo Xuanyu yourself; you are simply allowing him, by literally doing nothing, to do something he is fated to do anyways. Why is it a sin to do nothing? Why are you morally responsible for Mo Xuanyu's life?"
Lan Wangji shakes his head again. "Perhaps it can be said that, by a deontological framework, not using others as a means to an end is a perfect duty, while the duty to help others is an imperfect duty; thus, were I to do nothing, then the third party who manipulates Mo Xuanyu into suicide will still have committed a graver moral wrongdoing than me. And yet, imperfect duties are still duties. Inaction is also a decision with moral weight. While allowing someone to die through inaction is not completely morally equivalent to killing someone yourself, it is still a moral wrong. If I walk by a lake in which someone is drowning, knowing full well I can easily save them, and yet choose to do nothing and allow them to drown, then I have done wrong."
Continues Lan Wangji: "Nor do I think the addition of suicide changes anything: if I walk by a lake and see someone fling themself into it with the intention of committing suicide, and I do not do anything to save them when I could have done so, then I am still guilty of the sin of allowing someone to die through inaction. Thus, if I allow Mo Xuanyu to become so tormented in this next year that he ends up being driven to spiritual suicide, knowing full well the entire time that I could have saved him from that fate, then I will have committed a grave wrongdoing."
Replies the genie: "Here, you seem to be moving away from pure deontology and towards a sort of consequentialism. You take responsibility not just for actions you committed yourself, but also states of affairs that you failed to prevent through inaction."
Objects Lan Wangji: "I do not think I have moved away from deontology at all."
Continues the genie: "But in that case, where does your responsibility to prevent negative states of affairs end? Certainly, as you said, if there was someone drowning right in front of you, and you did nothing to save them, then you would have committed a grave moral wrongdoing. But would the same thing still be true if this person and the lake they had fallen into was 5000 miles away instead? Would you still be guilty, simply because you had not gotten on your sword and flown all of those 5000 miles to save them? Or, let me put it this way: currently, there are a wide number of charitable organizations that operate with the genuine mission statement of helping the poor. Yet these organizations struggle because they do not have enough funds--because they do not receive enough donations. This morning, you purchased a book of rare poetry for your own personal enjoyment; because of its rarity, this book was quite expensive. Given that you spent this large sum of money for your own personal enjoyment instead of donating it to a charitable organization that could have used it to help the poor, are you thus guilty?"
Replies Lan Wangji: "You raise the demandingness objection purely as an argument from absurdity; to prove that me taking responsibility for Mo Xuanyu's suicide is absurd. I disagree with this objection. First, the situation with Mo Xuanyu is not equivalent to the donation example you raised: while one may argue that others may donate to those organizations while I did not, therefore reducing my moral culpability in preventing the suffering of the poor, the same argument cannot be made for Mo Xuanyu. You have already told me that, if I do not ask you to save Mo Xuanyu now, that Mo Xuanyu is guaranteed to die; no one can save him except for me."
Continues Lan Wangji: "Second, I do not fully consider the demandingness objection to be a valid objection. In fact, many acts which others may call 'optional'--such as the obligation to help the poor and the weak at one's own inconvenience--are in fact moral obligations. In fact, it makes no difference whether the person drowning is my neighbor or some stranger 5000 miles away: either way, if I have the means to save them, then I have a moral obligation to save them. Furthermore, I must thank you for bringing up the example of charitable organizations that help the poor, because you are in fact correct in saying that, considering my family's level of wealth and power, I am not doing enough to help the poor."
At this, the genie cocks its head. "So you seem to be determined to take responsibility for states of affairs that were not directly brought about by your own actions; you seem determined to follow this consequence-based approach. Is that correct?"
"Yes," replies Lan Wangji.
"Then," continues the genie, "and this might seem like I am asking the obvious, but--are you also determined to take responsibility for states of affairs that are directly brought about by your own actions?"
"Of course," replies Lan Wangji.
The genie smiles. "In that case, why not apply this reasoning to Wei Wuxian himself?" it asks. "Let me put things this way. The consequence of you doing nothing is that Mo Xuanyu suffers bitterly enough for a year that he is driven to permanently annihilate his soul, and that Wei Wuxian is brought back from the afterlife into the land of the living. But the consequence of you saving Mo Xuanyu is not just that Mo Xuanyu no longer annihilates his soul, but also that Wei Wuxian does not come back to life. If you choose to save Mo Xuanyu, then the state of affairs of [Wei Wuxian staying dead] is the direct result of your choice."
Continues the genie: "Therefore, if you choose to save Mo Xuanyu, are you not also guilty of allowing Wei Wuxian to stay dead? You knew full well that he had the chance of coming back to life, and yet you took that chance from him. Wei Wuxian dying is not your fault, but Wei Wuxian staying dead would be entirely your fault."
Lan Wangji says nothing.
Says the genie: "You could easily argue that [allowing Wei Wuxian to stay dead]--or rather, [removing the option of Wei Wuxian coming back to life]--is in fact a disservice against him. That, if Wei Wuxian was originally fated to return to life, and then you undertook an action that you knew would change that fate, then you have stolen something from Wei Wuxian. That you have wronged him in some sense."
Lan Wangji says nothing.
Continues the genie: "Certainly, if I had offered this opportunity to Jiang Wanyin instead, and he had taken me up on my offer and thus rescued Mo Xuanyu, you would doubtlessly accuse him of having made his decision not out of concern for Mo Xuanyu, but rather out of hatred for Wei Wuxian."
Lan Wangji says nothing.
"But," continues the genie," "you are not neutral. You do not know this Mo Xuanyu; he is merely a stranger to you. And yet, you love Wei Wuxian. Therefore, were you to make this argument, you would never be fully certain of your own objectivity. Would this argument be the full moral truth as you believed it to be, or would your reasoning have been swayed by your own subjective feelings? Could you say with full confidence that the fact that you love Wei Wuxian more than Mo Xuanyu did not at all sway your moral judgment?"
Lan Wangji says nothing.
The genie also stays quiet for a while. Eventually, though, the genie speaks again.
"This situation of reviving the dead from the afterlife can be a bit abstract for someone to follow, so let us consider a roughly equivalent situation more grounded in reality."
"Imagine," says the genie, "that a little girl has a fatal heart disease. However, the medical technology of the country they live in is so advanced that, if only the little girl is given a compatible heart transplant, then the heart disease will be cured completely and the little girl can live a completely normal life. However, due to some genetic quirk, the little girl's parents have failed entirely to find a compatible heart."
Continues the genie: "Then, one day, by some sheer coincidence, it is found that a little boy who lives nearby has a completely compatible heart. The little boy has no relation to the little girl, her parents, or you. Thus, the parents plan to kill this little boy, harvest his heart, and have the heart planted into their little girl, which will save their little girl's life."
Continues the genie: "You as a third-party observer somehow learn of the parents' plan. You are not completely neutral yourself: the little boy is a stranger to you, while the little girl is someone you care for deeply. However, now that you have learned of the parents' plan, you have a choice: you can prevent the parents from killing the little boy (in which case the little boy will not be killed and the little girl will die of her heart disease), or you can do nothing (in which case the little boy will be killed and the little girl's heart disease will be fully cured). It is guaranteed that if the parents commit this murder, they will get away with it entirely, and that they will not commit any more murders. What is the moral thing to do?"
Lan Wangji thinks about this for a while. Eventually, he says: "When you put it that way, somehow the choice of [doing nothing] still feels more immoral than the choice of [stopping the parents]."
Continues Lan Wangji: "Which means that, between [saving Mo Xuanyu] and [doing nothing], [doing nothing] still feels like the more unethical course of action. Even if it brings about a state of affairs that brings me more happiness."
Continues Lan Wangji: "Which means that what I first said earlier still stands. By giving me this information, you have destroyed what moral luck I have had so far."
"Your moral luck?" asks the genie.
"Yes, my moral luck," replies Lan Wangji. "Though i am not sure if that is the correct term to use. But the fact that i am now caught in a moral dilemma is not the result of my own actions, but rather simply the fact that I was unlucky enough to meet you."
Continues Lan Wangji: "The information you have given me has altered the level of moral responsibility I have for Mo Xuanyu and Wei Ying's future situation. If I do not intervene in someone's suicide because I do not know they are attempting suicide, then I am not morally culpable; however, if I do not intervene in someone's suicide despite knowing that they are attempting suicide, then I have committed a wrongdoing. Had you not told me about the future, then any suicide Mo Xuanyu committed would not be my fault, as I would not know about it at all; but since you have told me about the future, if Mo Xuanyu commits suicide then I am at least partially responsible, since I knew in advance yet did not try to save him."
Continues Lan Wangji: "Yet, if I now save Mo Xuanyu, I would be doing so with the full knowledge that this decision would in turn doom Wei Ying, deny him a reversal of his unjust death. As you said earlier, if I chose to save Mo Xuanyu, then Wei Ying staying dead would also now be my fault."
Says Lan Wangji: "There is now no longer a path forwards in which I am both happy and free of moral wrongdoing. In my earlier ignorance, I was at once free from moral criticism regarding this situation and also fated to eventually become happy. Now, however, you have cursed me with knowledge, and I am forced to choose between the two."