(Steelhunt) Shadows of Self: Who Wrote Marsh's Book?

[11thorderknight]

@Shardlet - you've brought up some very well-reasoned points, and in general, I agree with your conclusion. I'd have to say though, that I strongly disagree with your basic premise, which is that morality requires an "overarching moral authority". Morality is what it is, much the same way that mathematics is what it is; neither require an "authority" to make them so. We, as individuals of imperfect understanding, may be mistaken in our personal beliefs of what morality might be in any given situation, and there are certainly many situations where morality is not clear-cut (at least in my opinion, maybe I'm wrong!). My point, though, is that morality is universal and axiomatic; it is very different from law, which IS imposed by an authority.

 

What's very interesting to me about this discussion is that this is EXACTLY the discussion that Jasnah and Shallan have in Way of Kings, when they discuss their respective religious beliefs. That discussion, and Brandon's characterization of Jasnah, is outstanding - I really feel that Brandon hit it out of the park with how well he depicted a real-world theological/moral/philosophical dilemma in-world.

 

And as for Hemalurgy: I'll jump on the contrarian band-wagon and say that there is nothing whatsoever immoral about it. And since morality is universal, this is not my opinion, it's fact :-) 

 

Sure, the requirement that someone has to die in order to produce a useful spike is inconvenient, and makes it quite difficult to use hemalurgy in a moral way. It's obviously immoral to spike people against their will. But to spike someone who is imminently dying anyway in order to benefit others? With that person's consent? There's nothing objectively immoral about that at all. You may personally find it unpleasant, but your tastes do not dictate universal morality. As a very serious real-world analogy, there are some cultures that view organ transplantation as being taboo. Does that make it immoral? Aside from kidneys and livers, someone has to die to make an organ available for transplantation - does that make the practice immoral? Hemalurgy is no more immoral than that. 

[Moogle]

But to spike someone who is imminently dying anyway in order to benefit others? With that person's consent? There's nothing objectively immoral about that at all.

 

Ah, but Hemalurgy steals a piece of someone's "soul". The connotations of the word imply it will make someone's afterlife crappy. In such a case as there is eternal life after death awaiting everyone in the Cosmere, and using Hemalurgy made that afterlife eternal torture for the person, surely you'd agree that Hemalurgy's use would not be justified, except in very dire situations?

 

You know, I'm surprised no one's asked Brandon about the implications of Hemalurgy and the afterlife. I'll go add that to the megathread.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Moogle

[bartbug]

Hemalurgy's morality is centered on the Cosmere's definition of "soul". If it is the same as ours, then it is immoral in every sense of the word.

On a second note...

 

If Hemalurgy becomes more widespread in the 2nd or 3rd Trilogy, and they have it as itself as a moral action (not counting the killing) I could see armies using specific bullets or daggers to take down enemy Mistings to get spikes. It could be an interesting scenario, with different governments fighting over different spike caches. Maybe the Set is trying to make one.

[Gloom]

And as for Hemalurgy: I'll jump on the contrarian band-wagon and say that there is nothing whatsoever immoral about it. And since morality is universal, this is not my opinion, it's fact :-) 

I'll answer this quote with a quote.

 

“Don’t be stupid,” she said. “Every sense of morality is odd.” — Lift

 

I'm not sure that the earrings Sazed has distributed to his faithful are actual spikes, or something based off the spikes. If they are invested directly by Sazed rather than ripping the investiture out of humans, are they still Hemalurgic spikes? Does it say anywhere that they are spikes, or are we just assuming they are because they are so similar to what Vin wore.

 

As for the Kandra, we don't know that Sazed has allowed for the creation of more Kandra. He may be working off the premise of what's done is done. Sazed himself neither claims to be a god or a moral compass for his followers. His philosophy is leave the world a better place than you found it, and that's about as far as he goes. He even encouraged people to look elsewhere for their moral guidance by listing out religions and their tenets in the founding.

 

I really can't see Sazed ordering his Kandra to go kill people so he can talk to his faithful. Where would you put such a spike in someone in order to allow communion with Sazed?

Edited November 25, 2013 by Gloom

[Kurkistan]

I'm not sure that the earrings Sazed has distributed to his faithful are actual spikes, or something based off the spikes. If they are invested directly by Sazed rather than ripping the investiture out of humans, are they still Hemalurgic spikes? Does it say anywhere that they are spikes, or are we just assuming they are because they are so similar to what Vin wore.

 

No, they're spikes. Melted down Inquisitor spikes, in fact.

 

Sources: A One... A two-HOO... A tha-three.. (crunch sound effect).

[Shardlet]

@Shardlet - you've brought up some very well-reasoned points, and in general, I agree with your conclusion. I'd have to say though, that I strongly disagree with your basic premise, which is that morality requires an "overarching moral authority". Morality is what it is, much the same way that mathematics is what it is; neither require an "authority" to make them so. We, as individuals of imperfect understanding, may be mistaken in our personal beliefs of what morality might be in any given situation, and there are certainly many situations where morality is not clear-cut (at least in my opinion, maybe I'm wrong!). My point, though, is that morality is universal and axiomatic; it is very different from law, which IS imposed by an authority.

 

I completely disagree.  Morality exists as either a social construct or as an ethic introduced by a creative entity (i.e., God).  I can't get behind morality existing independant of anything.  If that were the case, it would hardly be so subjective.  Even in the most basic and most universal moral thought (i.e., killing people is bad) there is vast differences in what is considered bad killing from culture to culture.  While I personally believe that there is an absolute morality sourced from a creative entity (prescribed but not necessarily directly enforced), such beliefs don't necessarily apply to a fictional construct.

[Kurkistan]

Okay, I'm going to play morality police. 

 

Shardlet, knight, let's call it a night (ha, note the pun ). Both of you are being a bit less than generous in your assessment of the reality of the other's position: you are both representing cogent schools of moral philosophy; getting to who's right about the proper kind of moral thought is a discussion all its own.

 

EDIT: To clarify, that discussion is a very large discussion. As in several thousand years of philosophical thought.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[Moogle]

Shardlet, knight, let's call it a night (ha, note the pun ). Both of you are being a bit less than generous in your assessment of the reality of the other's position: you are both representing cogent schools of moral philosophy; getting to who's right about the proper kind of moral thought is a discussion all its own.

 

Who says either of them is right?

 

(This has been your false dichotomy Moogle, zooming past)

[Kurkistan]

Who says either of them is right?

 

(This has been your false dichotomy Moogle, zooming past)

 

Actually, I never said that either was right, just implied it.

 

They're both assuming realism, for one.

 

(This has been your currently-procrastinating-on-his-thesis-on-moral-philosophy Kurkistan, stopping by).

Edited November 26, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[11thorderknight]

Okay, I'm going to play morality police. 

 

Shardlet, knight, let's call it a night (ha, note the pun ). Both of you are being a bit less than generous in your assessment of the reality of the other's position: you are both representing cogent schools of moral philosophy; getting to who's right about the proper kind of moral thought is a discussion all its own.

 

EDIT: To clarify, that discussion is a very large discussion. As in several thousand years of philosophical thought.

 

What, are you saying we're not capable of settling the central question of philosophy and theism on this forum?

 

Also, with regard to the "ripping off a piece of someone's soul" part of hemalurgy - I admit that I don't take that into account when deciding on the morality of hemalurgy, simply because Brandon hasn't, as far as I know, actually given us any information as to what that actually means. If, as Moogle suggests, this has negative implications for that individual's state in the afterlife, then I would have to revise my assessment. But if the portion of the "spiritweb" that's ripped off is analogous to a physical organ, like the liver for instance, and doesn't have any afterlife implications, then I stand by my earlier arguments.

[Shardlet]

I agree, it is hard to take that (chunk of soul ripped out and tacked on) into account when the result is so far a matter of speculation.  Although, doesn't the WoB say spiritweb?  Does this equal soul?  IDK.  If it does, then would not shardblades be just as evil since a shardblade wound (and presumably death damages the soul?

 

 Source:

 

Does a limb that has been "severed" by a Shardblade have any Hemalurgic bindpoints? If the same limb was then cut off more conventionally, would a Bloodmaker ferring be able to grow it back?

Brandon Sanderson

A severed Shardblade limb needs repair to the soul before it would function again. A Bloodmaker would be able to heal it without needing to grow it back.

 

[WeiryWriter]

I, personally, would not say a person's spirit-web/sDNA would be the entirety of a person's soul/spiritual aspect.  In the same way that a persons pDNA is only a part of their physical aspect.

[Kurkistan]

I agree, it is hard to take that (chunk of soul ripped out and tacked on) into account when the result is so far a matter of speculation.  Although, doesn't the WoB say spiritweb?  Does this equal soul?  IDK.  If it does, then would not shardblades be just as evil since a shardblade wound (and presumably death damages the soul?

 

 Source:

 

Some (read: Me and Satsuoni) have theorized that Shardblades don't really damage the soul itself when they "sever" a limb, but rather sever that limbs connection to its Spiritual parts. So your Spiritual "arm" is still there, it just isn't hooked up to anything.

[Shardlet]

Some (read: Me and Satsuoni) have theorized that Shardblades don't really damage the soul itself when they "sever" a limb, but rather sever that limbs connection to its Spiritual parts. So your Spiritual "arm" is still there, it just isn't hooked up to anything.

 

I personally have no real idea on it.  I was just going by what Brandon said when he said that repairing shardblade damage required repair to the soul.

[Morsk]

Ookla the Confuzified, on 25 Nov 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

If we're going to start deciding which Words of Brandon are canon and which aren't, this entire forum will likely collapse. I'm sorry, and I'm sure you feel that this is just one exception, and you can come up with a number of reasons why this quote is questionable, but all the quotes that support what you want to believe are unassailable.

Calling it "canon" causes it's own problems. It's leading to in-world explanations for why Hemalurgy is so horrible, like it destroying souls or causing torturous pain after death. Those aren't supported by the text, and conflict at least partly with things we know. Ruin is not evil. The true afterlife is beyond the Three Realms. And permanent death has serious theological consequences. What kind of God can't or won't save the innocent from permanent death, especially in a universe we know has an afterlife? Is Hemalurgy proof that there's no God in the cosmere then?

I see it as cheapening the books, and particularly unfair to Shadows of Self which hasn't even come out yet, to say that any moral issues raised about Hemalurgy are pointless because we have a canon statement. Hemalurgy is obviously very disturbing if considered seriously, but the difference between that and a canon statement is that the latter invites us to draw sweeping conclusions based on an infallible premise.

[Oudeis]

Some (read: Me and Satsuoni) have theorized that Shardblades don't really damage the soul itself when they "sever" a limb, but rather sever that limbs connection to its Spiritual parts. So your Spiritual "arm" is still there, it just isn't hooked up to anything.

 

In the short term that might be all, but surely having your spiritual aspect and your physical aspect separated cannot be healthy for either. I suppose I cannot prove it, but I am still sure that both of your aspects will decay, deteriorate and die seperated.

[Kurkistan]

I doubt that. Szeth exposits that severed limbs are paralyzed, not that they rot off.

[Oudeis]

I doubt that. Szeth exposits that severed limbs are paralyzed, not that they rot off.

 

That's only in the prologue, yes? In context, he could very easily mean in the short term. Shardblades are rare, and injuries with them might not be terribly well-documented. Szeth would have a lot of experience swiping at a person and seeing one limb stop responding with no other obvious outward sign, but on the rare occasions that he does wound someone with his Blade but not kill him, I doubt he follows up with the after-patient care. It sounds even to me that I'm starting to justify my theory in the face of evidence, so I'm just going to be silent from now on. I guess all I've got is that it doesn't "feel" right that you suffer some wound that looks a lot like total nerve severance, yet blood keeps pumping and all the other things your body needs to do for your arm not to fall off.

[Kurkistan]

Thank you for recognizing the straw-grasping nature of your claims.

 

In all seriousness, though, I do sympathize with it not "feeling" right. That's part of why I favor the idea that the limb has only be "disconnected" from the control of its owner, rather than "killed" in a more substantive sense.

 

To throw in the relevant quotes:

 

Szeth is in "Exposit about worldbuilding" mode when he notes that fact, and the specific quote indicates a degree of permanency.

If the Blade touched a man’s spine, he died, eyes burning. If it cut through the core of a limb, it killed that limb. One soldier stumbled away from Szeth, arm flopping uselessly on his shoulder. He would never be able to feel it or use it again.

[....]

The tempest within Szeth gave him many advantages—including the ability to quickly recover from small wounds. But it would not restore limbs killed by a Shardblade.

Though he does refer to a "severed" limb as "killed", providing a counterpoint. Then again, Brandon didn't have a problem when I used "severed" as the term for such limbs.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[Oudeis]

I don't think those quotes support you as well as you seem to think... you're right, they don't expressly say, "the limbs will rot and fall off." They also don't say anything specific about what happens in the future, so it also doesn't say "the limb will continue looking fine forever." On our world of Earth, if someone cannot feel or use their arm, it will atrophy. I'm no medical doctor, but I don't think that with Arthurian level technology, a limb that presented with total nerve damage would last long. Do we know that a Shardblade does nothing worse than nerve damage? Will blood still travel? Will it still heal on its own? How could it, with no sensation to anything? Bumps, bruises, cuts. There are medical conditions which include a total lack of the sensation of touch/pain, and one of the biggest issues patients face is that, like an Elantrian, you bump your own limbs on things constantly in normal use.

 

I mean... correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be, "if the limb rotted and fell off, Szeth would have mentioned it," and I don't agree. If I am mistaken, please feel free to enlighten me.

[Kurkistan]

Oh, I totally agree that a fair number of secondary problems arise when you can't feel or move a limb. It would likely atrophy, though I think still heal on its own when not abused.

 

It's just that "he would never be able to feel or use it again" implies that the soldier in question isn't facing a choice between amputation or death as his arm starts to rot off while still attached to his body. Sure, you'll "never be able to use" a limb that got amputated, and someone with untreated gangrene will "never be able to" do anything ever again if left alone, but the choice of words suggests paralysis.

 

At this point, I'll admit that my opinion on this is mostly as firm as it is because of my gut. I would be thoroughly surprised if "killed" limbs rotted off of their own accord. I feel just about as strongly on this point, just from my reading of the book, as I did about Denth.

 

Side note: I really don't read much of the worldbuilding in the prologue as "Szeth mentioning things": rather, I see it as exposition that happens to be from Szeth's perspective.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[Oudeis]

WARNING: Revival of the "Is hemalurgy evil?" question imminent.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong; considering the number of posts on so many threads throughout this forum where we've had this debate, it turns the idea of searching through all of them into a sysiphisian task, so I'm going to make an observation based on my impression. If I am mistaken, if I have missed someone's opinion for whatever reason, I beg your indulgence and ask that you correct me. It is not my intention to slight anyone.

 

Here is my observation: A lot of people seem to split into two camps. The idea that there are definite moral absolutes, or the fact that there are not, that they are entirely mutable social constructs. Everyone I have seen support the idea that hemalurgy is not evil seems to belong to the "there's no such thing as evil" camp. Again, if I've missed someone who agrees that evil DOES exist independently of social norms and that hemalurgy simply doesn't fit the bill, let me know and I'll send you a PM to apologize and upvote your post.

 

In the annotations for Mistborn 2: The Well of Ascension, Chapter 41, Mr. Sanderson discusses situational ethics.

 

There are a lot of absolute rights and a lot of absolute wrongs in life, but there are far MORE rights and wrongs that depend on who you are as a person

 

This is Brandon's universe. Technically it is his cosmere. You can debate whether or not there are absolute morals in our own "real" universe, but he gets to make the rules for his, and the rule is that there are.

 

Let me save everyone some time.

 

 

That doesn't matter; he gets to create systems of magic, Gods themselves, and ballgowns for women who plan to assassinate each other after dessert, but the author doesn't get to decide if there are moral absolutes in his own book.

 

I happen to disagree. It is his book, and his universe. Let me re-iterate the fact I've stated before; you're allowed to believe whatever you wish. If you attempt to tell me, however, that you're right because your personal beliefs about a topic that's kept liberal arts students busy for literally thousands of years trumps a fantasy author's right to craft his own world, and if you're going to insult me for believing something different when your proof essentially boils down to how you feel about the world, please be prepared for me to be unimpressed. I'm not saying that your belief is wrong, and honestly I'm not even saying I think my own evidence is rock-solid. I am, as ever, open to conjecture based on evidence disproving my ideas. Please, however, have something better than "I just know that there's no such thing as absolute morality because I know it, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." Since I'm sure no one on this forum would ever make such a statement, I'm hopeful I've offended no one.

EDIT: Upon re-read this came off as more confrontational than I'd intended. I softened it.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Ookla the Confuzified

[Moogle]

This is Brandon's universe. Technically it is his cosmere. You can debate whether or not there are absolute morals in our own "real" universe, but he gets to make the rules for his, and the rule is that there are.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that 'absolute morals' are absolute everywhere under all deontological frameworks? That is to say, if something is immoral in this universe, it is also immoral in the Cosmere (and vice versa)? Even if I were of the persuasion that there were absolute morals, I would argue Brandon is not capable of saying they're different and/or exist/don't exist in the Cosmere. He can have characters that believe in different absolute morals, sure, but that's not the same.

[Kurkistan]

To summarize my own position:
 
I agree that those who would say ""I just know that there's no such thing as absolute morality because I know it, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong'" would not be facilitating conversation. Similarly, though, those who say "I just know that there such thing as absolute morality in the cosmere because Brandon says so" are not adding much either.
 
I discuss hemalurgy as I would if I was a moral agent in a world in which it were possible, as do most of us, I think. I find very little of interest in a discussion based on interpreting Brandon's beliefs. Talk of "evidence" is quite nearly meaningless in this context, then, unless that evidence is about the nature of hemalurgy itself.
 
EDIT: To clarify a bit more, the debate about what Brandon believes is of little import to me, and I don't much care to participate in it.
 
EDIT 2:
 

Here is my observation: A lot of people seem to split into two camps. The idea that there are definite moral absolutes, or the fact that there are not, that they are entirely mutable social constructs. Everyone I have seen support the idea that hemalurgy is not evil seems to belong to the "there's no such thing as evil" camp. Again, if I've missed someone who agrees that evil DOES exist independently of social norms and that hemalurgy simply doesn't fit the bill, let me know and I'll send you a PM to apologize and upvote your post.

 

I don't think that absolutism vs. relativism is the proper cleavage to make.

 

I, for one, have not actually stated my own opinions, taking a second-order approach and just trying to moderate everyone else (mostly ). Other valid stances include irrealism about morals (to talk about morality is to talk of falsehoods or ill-conceived notions) and many other stances; for instance, a utilitarian would hold that the ends can justify the means so long as some objective metric of "good" is maximized in the long run.

 

Also, I think both Shardlet and Knight were asserting realist philosophies that concluded with the (situational) morality of hemalurgy, despite them falling into different camps on relativism and absolutism.

 

As such, I think that we might simply have a problem of confusion over what we're even arguing about. We've had two parallel discussions that, sadly, have sometimes spilled into one another without our notice: one about the morality of hemalurgy per se, another about its morality in Brandon's eyes.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Ookla the Inveterate

[Oudeis]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that 'absolute morals' are absolute everywhere under all deontological frameworks? That is to say, if something is immoral in this universe, it is also immoral in the Cosmere (and vice versa)?

Nope.

Physics are universal and absolute. Granted they do some weird things under certain circumstances, but the idea that you can turn a blank wall into a mural because it wants to be one, or that causility is secondary to how "plausible" a vase turning into a chamber pot is, has no room in the laws of physics in our world.

Similarly, morality can be subjective in our world, and objective in the cosmere, absolutely. It's a fictional universe. The laws of anything can be however the author envisions, including morality, absolutely.

If you're choosing to squabble over the semantics of the word "absolute" then please provide me a word that means "entirely, universally and utterly consistent within the framework of its specific real or imagined universe" and I will use it instead of "absolute."