Stormrunner1730

Evil In The Stormlight Archive

115 posts in this topic

I have to agree with Drake Marshall on his point that "selfishness is more or less the definition of evil intentions."

Selfishness is the root cause of all evil actions. In a world where being have free will only selfishness causes social conflict. If we all woke up tomorrow with an unselfish nature instead of a selfish one, I'm hard pressed to imagine a social problem that wouldn't go away. Economic challenges would exist, but with an unselfish disposition, the solutions to those problems would be more forthcoming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

You are correct. However, I don't think that Amarams logic is good, or should be practiced/followed by anyone. My point is mostly that the things Amaram does isn't for himself, but for others. His intentions are to, in the end, help others. But yes, his way of doing this is extremely stupid, and yes, he is wrong. But I can't call him evil, when he is attempting to do something he thinks is good.

 

14 hours ago, Alfa said:

But this attitude borders on the logic of religious fanatics, and even those sometimes have the excuse of being brainwashed. Amaram doesn't. 

I don't know how much of Amaram's intentions are to help others.  I think he thinks his intentions are to help others.  I think his motivations are so tied to religion that his reality is defined by whether or not his actions lead to the re-ascension of the Vorin Church.  So I would say that his motivations are tied to his religious ideals moreso than an ideal to "help others",  I would probably still not consider him evil.  But I don't think he has altruistic motivations.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a

Edited by thejopen27
redundant
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2017 at 5:48 PM, Harry the Heir said:

First off, he literally did devise the Diagram himself. He may have been given the "capacity"--which is a slippery term--but he wrote the thing himself.

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but the blood-letting in his hospital isn't specifically directed by the Diagram. It's designed to supplement the Diagram, which means that that whole murderous enterprise depends on being able to trust Moelach and his dark eldritch powers. And on what basis are we to do that? Does Moelach have an honest face?

Taravangian has already made the arguement against himself. On his smartest days, they don't allow him to change laws because of his lack of humanity and empathy. It is his own rule. Yet he follows himself on his smartest day, theoretically his day with the least empathy. The only path the super genius with no empathy could think of was one of allowing 99 out of 100 to die. What paths did he not even consider because of his lack of empathy? Did his lack of understanding of humanity cause mistakes, blind spots? The desire to save as many as we can in a disaster is part of the thing that allows us to think of creative solutions. What did Taravangian not consider because he discarded human lives as unimportant?

 

Feeling regret for evil actions doesn't exonerate you. Ym committed a crime in his youth, his regret doesn't redeem him, but perhaps his actions of charity and love do. Feeling regret for an evil act doesn't redeem someone. Only actions taken to correct that act, or if that's impossible, stop others from doing similar things is the only thing that can redeem an evil act. 

Vashar/Zahel/Warbreaker/Kalad has lived for hundreds of years trying to undo the wrong he did in his early days. 

Edited by thejopen27
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 0:06 AM, Toaster Retribution said:

@Harry the Heir I won't bring Mistborn up more, but the point I wanted to make with it is that a characters role in the story determines how we see them. Had Taravangian or Amaram been protagonists, with as much page-time as Kaladin, Vin, Vivenna or other major Sandercharacters, we would have felt sympathy for them, and thought of them as good, or at least, not evil. 

Isn't this the point Brandon was trying to make with Warbreaker? That we can be tricked into thinking evil actions are right because we see them from the characters point of view. What Denth does isn't less evil because in the beginning we see it from his point of view. Vashar is the villain of Denth's story, but Vashar is trying to stop a war and save thousands of lives, Denth is trying to start a war for money and kill Vashar in revenge. 

Have you never read a book or watched a movie, show where you got to the end and realized the main character was the villain the whole time? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thejopen27 said:

Isn't this the point Brandon was trying to make with Warbreaker? That we can be tricked into thinking evil actions are right because we see them from the characters point of view. What Denth does isn't less evil because in the beginning we see it from his point of view. Vashar is the villain of Denth's story, but Vashar is trying to stop a war and save thousands of lives, Denth is trying to start a war for money and kill Vashar in revenge. 

To be honest, we don´t see Denths worst crimes until the end where we side with Vasher, but that is beside the point. You are right: perspective does make a difference. I think that most people wouldn´t think that Amaram, Taravangian or Szeth were bad if we saw their good actions. If we saw scenes of Taravangian genuinely caring for sick children in his hospital? If we saw Amaram valiantly saving farmers from being slaughtered by bandits? If we saw Szeth picking apples for poor people in Shinovar? I am convinced that all of these characters have done good things toward others, because most people have. And can they be evil while they do these things? Can a person be evil if they do good things to? If they want good for others? We have mostly seen the bad sides of our antagonists. I think there are more than that to be seen. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

To be honest, we don´t see Denths worst crimes until the end where we side with Vasher, but that is beside the point. You are right: perspective does make a difference. I think that most people wouldn´t think that Amaram, Taravangian or Szeth were bad if we saw their good actions. If we saw scenes of Taravangian genuinely caring for sick children in his hospital? If we saw Amaram valiantly saving farmers from being slaughtered by bandits? If we saw Szeth picking apples for poor people in Shinovar? I am convinced that all of these characters have done good things toward others, because most people have. And can they be evil while they do these things? Can a person be evil if they do good things to? If they want good for others? We have mostly seen the bad sides of our antagonists. I think there are more than that to be seen. 

Evil actions overpower good actions. If someone saves 100s of children, but picks one of them to kidnap and murder than their good does not outweigh the bad. I think you have misunderstood me. Denth was bad the whole time. Vivenna, while being counseled to do evil by Denth was doing evil. Had she not taken time to atone and undo the evil she had done, but instead walked away and just plead ignorance, she would have allowed evil to win. Point of view tricks us into thinking characters are justified when they're not. Szeth is never justified in following his awful orders. He should have abandoned his Oathstone or allowed himself to be killed years ago, but he is too weak. too cowardly. 

Just because someone has a justification or excuse, just because it makes sense to them, doesn't mean that it wasn't evil. Everyone is the hero of their own story, yes. But some people should know better, and some are lying to themselves.

Szeth is especially awful because he knows what he does is wrong, knows he shouldn't be doing it, AND knows there is no greater reason for it, but he does it anyway. He is the worst combination of "just following orders" and "my religion justifies me doing evil things"

Szeth, as Kaladin accurately points out, is a coward. He is too weak to do what he knows is right. He uses his code as an excuse to not stand-up for what he knows he should do. "I was just following orders." isn't an excuse. Szeth was too proud to risk his "Honor" to stop following terrible orders he knew all along were evil. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption that Taravangian created the Diagram alone on his smartest day ever, means we accept his belief. I don't. There are two possibilities that I see. 

1) Taravangian is correct, and the Diagram was created when he was unfathomably intelligent and completely without empathy. Thus notion is undermined by the understanding of humans emotions that allows him to manipulate events in a way to place himself as King in Jah Keved at the behest of the masses viewing him as the compassionate savior figure prior to "finding" his claim of a bloodline tie. 

2) The Diagram was orchestrated by an external force (I think Cultivation, though others have argued Odium) and his normal intellect/empathy balance are thrown out the window. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Calderis said:

The assumption that Taravangian created the Diagram alone on his smartest day ever, means we accept his belief. I don't. There are two possibilities that I see. 

1) Taravangian is correct, and the Diagram was created when he was unfathomably intelligent and completely without empathy. Thus notion is undermined by the understanding of humans emotions that allows him to manipulate events in a way to place himself as King in Jah Keved at the behest of the masses viewing him as the compassionate savior figure prior to "finding" his claim of a bloodline tie. 

2) The Diagram was orchestrated by an external force (I think Cultivation, though others have argued Odium) and his normal intellect/empathy balance are thrown out the window. 

I believe he created it alone. I believe he was incredibly, impossibly smart. I believe he is wrong that it is the only solution. He understands empathy, what it is and why it's useful. He just doesn't have any. 

Edited by thejopen27
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, thejopen27 said:

I believe he created it alone. I believe he was incredibly, impossibly smart. I believe he is wrong that it is the only solution. He understands empathy, what it is and why it's useful. He just doesn't have any. 

And I disagree. Taravangian figured out things that there was required knowledge unavailable to anyone but possibly the Heralds or a Shard. 

The possibility of it being purely through the brain power of a single person, no matter how intelligent, seems off. 

There was something feeding into the day of brilliance. The things he figured out about the Unmade, the Heralds, the Honorblades, the secret that Broke the Knights, and the death of Honor... Requires information that is not available to people in world. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Calderis said:

There was something feeding into the day of brilliance. The things he figured out about the Unmade, the Heralds, the Honorblades, the secret that Broke the Knights, and the death of Honor... Requires information that is not available to people in world. 

He was already an educated man, who had spent his whole life in the worlds largest library. I interpret the day of the diagram as his smartest possible self (with no empathy) making logical connections, extrapolations, estimations, and leaps of logic on a massive scale. Connecting things that others in universe can't see any connection between. He essentially did what we do as a hive-mind on the forums. He gathered all the available data and processed it extremely quickly and made giant leaps in logic. I think that logic will be flawed because I think his smartest self has underestimated humanity. I do not trust Taravangian's smartest self. I think there is a chance the diagram is a self fulfilling prophecy. The diagram may be fulfilled only because the diagram was actively implemented. If Taravangian hadn't sewn so much chaos maybe there would be another way to solve the problem. Maybe Moeloch's death rattles are intentionally messing with the diagram, leading them to the worst possible conclusions.

I will concede that it's possible that Odium pushed Taravangian somehow down a darker path in his logic.

And in the end, Taravangian persists in doing things he knows are wrong because some book, that he can't remember writing or why he wrote it, tells him to. In the end, Taravangian will either be wrong, and there will be another way to save humanity, or there was another way to save humanity but Taravangian's plan was so destructive at first, that there is no other way out after he has caused so much damage. 

Edited by thejopen27
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@thejopen27 and I will continue to disagree. No matter how long he's spent in that, or how educated, he can't have intensely studied every book there, and even if he had, he's still dealing with texts that have been altered by the hierocracy. 

There are things he deduced on that day are simply composed of information that is not available. 

The Diagram, and what it proposes, screams of the work of Cultivation. Strengthen the whole through aggressive pruning and directed growth. 

Yes, it's unempathetic. It's also a good plan. Inhumane and remarkably unethical, but effective. 

Assuming the death rattles are misleading assumes that they are inaccurate and we have no evidence to show that. All evidence points to the opposite. For the death rattles to be intentionally misleading, means that one of the Unmade is expending its power to create false prophecies (which they aren't) that prior to Taravangian harvesting them were completely ignored as dying delirium. 

The death rattles are a side effect of whatever Moelach is actually doing. The rattles themselves as the intended effect makes absolutely no sense. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Diagram is so sure of the DR's usefulness. They have to have some kind of proof of their validity... Maybe a section of the Diagram explains the DR's mechanic

As @Calderis said I believe the DR are a side effect of something Moleach does and the Unmade has no Control on the slipped informations the dyings give away.

Edited by Yata
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

Evil actions overpower good actions. If someone saves 100s of children, but picks one of them to kidnap and murder than their good does not outweigh the bad. I think you have misunderstood me. Denth was bad the whole time. Vivenna, while being counseled to do evil by Denth was doing evil. Had she not taken time to atone and undo the evil she had done, but instead walked away and just plead ignorance, she would have allowed evil to win. Point of view tricks us into thinking characters are justified when they're not. Szeth is never justified in following his awful orders. He should have abandoned his Oathstone or allowed himself to be killed years ago, but he is too weak. 

I don't really agree. Evil actions can outweigh good ones, and good can outweigh evil. But an action isn't what defines a human being. That is the mind and soul, the actual core of a human. The inside is more important than the outside and all that. I think it applies to good and evil too.

I see evil as a conscious choice, or just when you almost always do horrible things for personal gain. Sauron is evil. Voldemort is evil. Emperor Palpatine is evil. Steelheart is evil. In all those characters we see bad intents, not just bad actions. They all seek power for themselves, and happily kills others for it. 

I think that there is an obvious difference between Sauron, Voldemort, Palpy and Steelheart, and folks like Amaram, Szeth or King T. The SA guys are more complex, more human. They have reasons for their actions that goes beyond themselves. This is why I can't consider them evil. Their actions are evil, but their intentions are not, as opposed to Sauron or Voldemort, were both intentions and actions are evil. Intentions define people more than their actions do.

12 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

Szeth is especially awful because he knows what he does is wrong, knows he shouldn't be doing it, AND knows there is no greater reason for it, but he does it anyway. He is the worst combination of "just following orders" and "my religion justifies me doing evil things"

Szeth, as Kaladin accurately points out, is a coward. He is too weak to do what he knows is right. He uses his code as an excuse to not stand-up for what he knows he should do. "I was just following orders." isn't an excuse. Szeth was too proud to risk his "Honor" to stop following terrible orders he knew all along were evil. 

Szeth is a coward. There is a difference between cowardice and being evil. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actions define people not their thoughts. If i walked into a school and bled 100 5 year olds because I believed that would save humanity from extinction. If I said oh but i felt really bad about it and had to do it because of my beliefs. Even if what I said was true I would still be considered evil by most sane individuals even though my intent was selfless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, forgedpig said:

Actions define people not their thoughts. If i walked into a school and bled 100 5 year olds because I believed that would save humanity from extinction. If I said oh but i felt really bad about it and had to do it because of my beliefs. Even if what I said was true I would still be considered evil by most sane individuals even though my intent was selfless.

Not a valid comparison. Taravangian would likely be viewed as evil by the people of Roshar if what he were doing comes to light. If it didn't though, and he was completely right, and everything he is doing did in fact save humanity, after the fact he would be viewed as a hero who did things no one should have ever had too do. 

Morality is determined after the fact. History is written to make the people who changed things appear morally correct. 

If Taravangian is wrong, he's a monster and will be remembered as such. If he's right and succeeds, he will be remembered very differently. 

It's not a matter of his beliefs alone, but if they're right, which is why comparing it to a situation outside of fiction is not valid. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Calderis said:

Not a valid comparison. Taravangian would likely be viewed as evil by the people of Roshar if what he were doing comes to light. If it didn't though, and he was completely right, and everything he is doing did in fact save humanity, after the fact he would be viewed as a hero who did things no one should have ever had too do. 

Morality is determined after the fact. History is written to make the people who changed things appear morally correct. 

If Taravangian is wrong, he's a monster and will be remembered as such. If he's right and succeeds, he will be remembered very differently. 

It's not a matter of his beliefs alone, but if they're right, which is why comparing it to a situation outside of fiction is not valid. 

NO, he's a monster either way, he may save people in the end (although if you have read Brandon, than you should know Taravangian is not the hero of this story) but he will always be a monster. Good intentions don't justify bad actions, good ends don't justify evil means, whether we are a good or bad person is the result of the sum of our actions. 

I think even Taravangian, who has completely bought into his own belief system, would never think of himself as a hero. At best he considers himself a necessary evil. A hard man for a hard time.

I doubt the main philosophy of Brandon Sanderson is Nihilism and consequentialism.

19 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Szeth is a coward. There is a difference between cowardice and being evil. 

If your cowardice leads you to persistently do evil, than I don't see a difference.It's not who we are on the inside, but what we do that defines us. If someone consistently does good actions, even if they are only doing them to earn money, or trick someone into thinking they're good, has done good and the world is still a better place. Someone who does bad things, of their own free will, but for a good reason, has still done only bad things. I empathize with Szeth, I can understand the path he has taken, but i don't sympathize with him. His actions, taken of his own free will, have caused terrible evil, and aided even greater evil. I will grant that if Szeth has truly stopped following whatever awful orders he is given, stopped blaming others for his actions, even if they ordered him to do them, than he is no longer evil. But it will take a lot of work for him to makes amends for his crimes. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@thejopen27 Would you call Vin or Kelsier evil then? They too have done bad things/been willing to do bad things, to cause good. Wouldn't that be evil too?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

NO, he's a monster either way, he may save people in the end (although if you have read Brandon, than you should know Taravangian is not the hero of this story) but he will always be a monster. Good intentions don't justify bad actions, good ends don't justify evil means, whether we are a good or bad person is the result of the sum of our actions. 

And as usual, I disagree. I'm well aware of Taravangian's role as the well intentioned villain. By your definition though, many of the people worshipped as heroes throughout history are monsters. People believe what they want to believe and they forget what doesn't fit into what they've convinced themselves of. It is impossible to read a history book without seeing distorted by the perceptions of the people who wrote it. In the hypothetical and unlikely event of Taravangian as the savior of Humanity on Roshar... People would intentionally forget most of the "evil" and he would be remembered as a Leader who made tough choices. It's human nature to salve our own consciences. 

Have you read Brandon? Because things are never as black and white with him as your making it. 

Mistborn Era 1 spoilers. 

Spoiler

At the end of the first book, TLR appeared to be a purely selfish and evil character. By the end of HoA, Rashek had been humanized to a remarkable degree, and many people (not including myself) view him as a hero twisted by an outside force. 

Add the morally Grey actions of the heroes that Toaster mentioned and you have a clear case of good guys and bad guys, right? 

 

4 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

I think even Taravangian, who has completely bought into his own belief system, would never think of himself as a hero. At best he considers himself a necessary evil. A hard man for a hard time.

If you limit this only to Taravangian, I agree. The attitude of his followers shows that this would in no way be universal. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

 

Will you call evil a guy who performe evil acts while his family/friend/treasure is keep prisoned and manaced ?

Mostly what Szeth does it's exactly this, he believe that if he goes aganist the Truthless's rules his Soul would be destroyed. People give different values to different stuffs, for someone kills people is ok as they will be fine in the afterlife.

I am not a religious guy, so I can't honestly say I deep understand him but peoples also in our world put a great amount of reverence to their Souls' fate. People killed and destroyed for the hope to save their own Souls.

It's too semplicistic to say that a guy is evil if he does evil things. Szeth is an example of this, but there are tons of similar examples in both fictional (Vin or Kelsier) and real world (for example the Crusaders).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 5:50 PM, thejopen27 said:

Evil actions overpower good actions. If someone saves 100s of children, but picks one of them to kidnap and murder than their good does not outweigh the bad. I think you have misunderstood me. Denth was bad the whole time. Vivenna, while being counseled to do evil by Denth was doing evil. Had she not taken time to atone and undo the evil she had done, but instead walked away and just plead ignorance, she would have allowed evil to win. Point of view tricks us into thinking characters are justified when they're not. Szeth is never justified in following his awful orders. He should have abandoned his Oathstone or allowed himself to be killed years ago, but he is too weak. too cowardly. 

Just because someone has a justification or excuse, just because it makes sense to them, doesn't mean that it wasn't evil. Everyone is the hero of their own story, yes. But some people should know better, and some are lying to themselves.

Szeth is especially awful because he knows what he does is wrong, knows he shouldn't be doing it, AND knows there is no greater reason for it, but he does it anyway. He is the worst combination of "just following orders" and "my religion justifies me doing evil things"

Szeth, as Kaladin accurately points out, is a coward. He is too weak to do what he knows is right. He uses his code as an excuse to not stand-up for what he knows he should do. "I was just following orders." isn't an excuse. Szeth was too proud to risk his "Honor" to stop following terrible orders he knew all along were evil. 

This times 100,000

Yes, humans are complex and no one is 100% evil or 100% good, but actions can be judged fairly clearly. No good end can be achieved by unjust means.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bo.montier said:

No good end can be achieved by unjust means.

People can hold themselves to this standard. Human civilization as a whole is built on a foundation of injustice and subjugation. 

To truly believe this statement is to reject the possibility of good in society. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Calderis said:

People can hold themselves to this standard. Human civilization as a whole is built on a foundation of injustice and subjugation. 

To truly believe this statement is to reject the possibility of good in society. 

Good in society comes from individuals choosing to do the right thing more often than not when a moment of decision comes to them. Humanity is composed of individuals who make individual choices that effect everyone. Too many people making negative choices drags down everyone, enough doing the right thing raise us up. Occasionally one person will balance on a tipping point with their individual choice able to echo down through time effecting everything. 

I don't believe good or evil are permanent states. Szeth isn't permanently evil. Neither is Taravangian. But they are now.

The problem with consequentialism, is what if you're wrong? What if you fail in the end. You've done all these terrible things, that potentially weaken your cause, give your opponents dirt on you, drive allies away from you, and hurt innocents who got in the way and then you fail, or you were wrong. Taravangian being vindicated relies on him being right AND him being successful. Otherwise he is weakening humanity in an hour of need and murdering innocent people for no reason. 

Edited by thejopen27
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

NO, he's a monster either way, he may save people in the end but he will always be a monster. Good intentions don't justify bad actions, good ends don't justify evil means, whether we are a good or bad person is the result of the sum of our actions. 

I think even Taravangian, who has completely bought into his own belief system, would never think of himself as a hero. At best he considers himself a necessary evil. A hard man for a hard time.

Taravangian mentioned that "I am the monster who will save this world." That makes it pretty clear how he views his actions. He sees them as monstrous.

Humanity, on the other hand.. if he's right, all humanity will care about is that he "saved this world." Sure he did absolutely terrible things while doing so, but the concept of "necessary evil" carries far more weight than you think it does(more weight than it really should, for that matter).

On 10/21/2017 at 6:06 PM, Calderis said:

The assumption that Taravangian created the Diagram alone on his smartest day ever, means we accept his belief. I don't. There are two possibilities that I see. 

1) Taravangian is correct, and the Diagram was created when he was unfathomably intelligent and completely without empathy. Thus notion is undermined by the understanding of humans emotions that allows him to manipulate events in a way to place himself as King in Jah Keved at the behest of the masses viewing him as the compassionate savior figure prior to "finding" his claim of a bloodline tie. 

2) The Diagram was orchestrated by an external force (I think Cultivation, though others have argued Odium) and his normal intellect/empathy balance are thrown out the window. 

3) Though I'm leaning towards Cultivation's guiding hands, I still see the possibility that the "Day of Brilliance" was actually a day of unrivaled compassion/empathy. I'd enjoy the symmetry of the Diagram having been made from both sides of his affliction, and since the "Day of Interpretation" pretty much has to have been when he was super-smart, I am left with the beginning.

1 hour ago, thejopen27 said:

The problem with consequentialism, is what if you're wrong? What if you fail in the end?

This question applies to the good guys too(at least in well-written literature) If Kaladin had truly believed that killing Elhokar was the right choice for his "protect the kingdom" oath, then his bond with Syl wouldn't have broken. If that actually was the best thing for the kingdom, then we're all fine and dandy. But what if that had thrown Alethkar into even more chaos? Would his bond have broken after he realized he actually broke his Oath?

To commit the assassination without breaking his bond means he would have to have very clearly thought it was the correct decision. When it turns out to have been the wrong decision, what happens then? [At it's base, this is only different from Taravangian's situation on a matter of scale, nothing more]

11 hours ago, bo.montier said:

No good end can be achieved by unjust means.

I disagree. It may be more difficult and/or you'll achieve evil at the same time, but good can be achieved through unjust means. Achieving only good, almost certainly not, but that's not what you said.

Good can be achieved through unjust means, just as evil can be achieved through just means. It's.. thought-provoking to debate which of those two is more difficult to achieve, if anyone is up for thinking outside the box.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thejopen27 said:

The problem with consequentialism, is what if you're wrong? What if you fail in the end. You've done all these terrible things, that potentially weaken your cause, give your opponents dirt on you, drive allies away from you, and hurt innocents who got in the way and then you fail, or you were wrong. Taravangian being vindicated relies on him being right AND him being successful. Otherwise he is weakening humanity in an hour of need and murdering innocent people for no reason. 

So the problem is realism. To undertake risks like Taravangian is, is monumental. Of course it relies on him being right. Call me jaded, but to function the way you say requires there to be an ultimate definition of good and evil beyond the definitions that we assign them. I don't believe this is true. If it is, there's no evidence of it. Men's actions are categorized after the fact, usually by other people after the individual is long dead. If Taravangian is incorrect, he will rightly, and by his own beliefs, be labeled a monster who undermined humanity in its hour of need. If he is correct, he'll be remembered as the hero who orchestrated their victory, and more horrific portions of his deeds will be buried and forgotten. 

If his actions come out prior to either scenario, he will be deemed as much a monster as if he is wrong or fails. In the long term, there is no good or evil beyond that. Morality is subjective, and "good" is what is decided by majority opinion. 

To think otherwise is reliant on an external source of morality. If you believe in that good for you. I don't. 

We were a tribal race, and despite our insistence on the inherent good of humans and our supposed superiority to animals, our roots show. Strongly. 

We continue to progress, and press forward incrementally through gradual changes via social pressures as our collective mentality slowly shifts. The wide swaths of people that choose to fight against this though in the name of their "tribe" show that we can also move backwards. 

You say that individuals can act as a balance point, and I don't disagree with you. The individuals with this level of power though, can only exist with enough support. Without a base to prop them up they would be ignored. 

Edited by Calderis
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.