Evil In The Stormlight Archive

[bo.montier]

10 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

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).

.....

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.

See, I just disagree with Taravangian, both in theory and in reality. I don't think you can point to a time when someone did something so hugely monstrous and humanity turned out to say "Hey, it wasn't pretty, but we're glad he did it..." The problem with this mindset is that it almost never stays altruistic in purpose, due to the twisted nature of the pursuit. Tyrant's everywhere and in all times think they're doing what is best for their people, but history rarely, if ever, remembers them fondly.

 

[Yata]

1 hour ago, bo.montier said:

See, I just disagree with Taravangian, both in theory and in reality. I don't think you can point to a time when someone did something so hugely monstrous and humanity turned out to say "Hey, it wasn't pretty, but we're glad he did it..." The problem with this mindset is that it almost never stays altruistic in purpose, due to the twisted nature of the pursuit. Tyrant's everywhere and in all times think they're doing what is best for their people, but history rarely, if ever, remembers them fondly.

 

Well the two Atomic Bombs on Japan during the WW2 were horribly actions but many people think it was a right decition to stop a war.

[bo.montier]

1 minute ago, Yata said:

Well the two Atomic Bombs on Japan during the WW2 were horribly actions but many people think it was a right decition to stop a war.

Oohh, yeah, that's a good one. 

I'll reply with this: Just War Doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
In particular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Jus_in_bello
Most interpretations of those doctrines justify the US in those actions. If you are fighting a Just War, which the US was (again, according to most interpretations of those doctrines) then the aggressor is the one morally culpable for the war. By starting the war unjustly, Japan directly caused the Atomic Bombs. The United States did what was necessary to bring an end to the war.

HUGE DISCLAIMER - I'm an American and obviously flawed/biased in my thinking, but the point is well taken.

[The One Who Connects]

1 minute ago, bo.montier said:

I don't think you can point to a time when someone did something so hugely monstrous and humanity turned out to say "Hey, it wasn't pretty, but we're glad he did it..."

Oh I don't think so either. I'm just saying that humanity is more willing to overlook some things as "making the tough calls." Sometimes they might be reprehensible actions, but the easier it is for people to see them as "necessary in the moment," the easier it is to accept them.

The big points with that is a matter of scale, and a matter of time:

• Scale: The "greater good" principle. If you nuke someplace to protect a city, that's way too far. If you nuke somebody to protect a country, that's still a bit much. If you nuke someplace to protect an entire continent, a case could be made. If you nuke somebody to protect humanity from extinction, that's probably justifiable.
  • [Granted, all of these require that action to have actually saved lives, but that's pretty obvious at this point]
• Time: Hindsight vs Heat of the Moment. People who are merely thankful to still be alive will overlook practically anything. In a few months(or years), they might see it differently. Their (grand)children won't see it the same way because they hadn't lived through it. Centuries later, and the histories might be tinted a different shade.
  • In a warzone, commanders have to make the tough calls, and sometimes that means not everybody comes home alive. The person who made the call because it was "the best/only choice at the time" might come to regret his actions when he looks back, seeing other options that he hadn't come up with back then, realizing that one of the discarded options would actually have been better, etc..

The path to saving the world(in any movie/tv show) is littered with tough choices and bad decisions. Humanity overlooks some of those because of how easy it is to put yourself in the character's shoes. Good storytellers/filmmakers can put you into that situation, letting you feel the sense of urgency, the emotions, the hectic atmosphere, etc... A history book can't replicate that, so we see it differently.

41 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

Tyrants everywhere and in all times think they're doing what is best for their people, but history rarely, if ever, remembers them fondly.

I'm not quite sure if Taravangian qualifies as a "tyrant" just yet... but I get what you're saying.

56 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

The problem with this mindset is that it almost never stays altruistic in purpose, due to the twisted nature of the pursuit.

Depends on your level of conviction. You are raised to regard some actions as "evil." We all are. Sometimes, one of those actions becomes "necessary." (those types of situations wont happen to everybody, but we're not really dealing with "just anybody" type of characters). Now that you've done it once, you realize that there's a time and place where "evil" actions can be justified, which makes it a little easier to continue committing those actions. It changes your view on restraint.

However, you can still restrain yourself. You restrained yourself from committing those actions for most of your life, so the only thing preventing you from continuing is your personal views on the concept of restraint. Some people think that the restraint is no longer necessary because they've seen that such actions can be justified, while others change their definition of restraint to something similar to the "great power, great responsibility" superhero mantra.

The former usually become tyrants or criminals, while the latter can become heroes and leaders. Are the former simply more common? Maybe, maybe not. But the former are more likely to show up in the history books because of their disreputable actions and their mark on society.

[Calderis]

14 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

The former usually become tyrants or criminals, while the latter can become heroes and leaders. Are the former simply more common? Maybe, maybe not. But the former are more likely to show up in the history books because of their disreputable actions and their mark on society.

This. As I said earlier, if Taravangian is successful, his more reprehensible acts will be buried and forgotten. 

If he is successful, it will not be a case of "well, he did what was necessary," it will be "he united us and guided us through an unbelievably difficult time," and no one will know what happened beyond a select few. In a generation or two, no one living would know Taravangian as anything other than a savior.

He himself believes the things he is doing are terrible. If he succeeds, the things he considers to be damning him will end. And he still won't forgive himself. 

[Rasha]

Morality is not an absolute. It depends on the society in which you live, and is a product of the time and customs of a civilization. I will link a comment I made last week about slavery, when people were debating if the enslavement of the Parshendi was morally justified (because I am a lazy piece of rust that doesn't want to redact properly again on the same topic):

 

Spoiler

Many around here judge slavery by our modern occidental standards. I even saw people quoting American law to further up their points, which is a total nonsense when attempting to understand slavery in an old society. Allow me to give you a quote for thoughts :

 

"It was only slavery that made possible on a scale large enough, the division between labor and industry, and later on, the apogee of hellenism. Without slavery, no Greek State, no Art and Science produced by Greeks. Without slavery, no Roman Empire.

Without the basis of hellenism and of the Roman Empire, there would not have been a modern Europe. We should never forget that all our economic, political, and intellectual evolution has for condition a situation in which slavery was as obvious as necessary.
We could say that we have the right to say: without ancient slavery, no modern socialism. [note : the author is Engels, and he would be considered on the far left spectrum in America. Nevertheless, you can substitute socialism by capitalism in this phrase, if it better suit you as a motor of progress]. 

It cost us nothing to wage war against slavery with generic formulae, and to scorn such an infamy with all of our superior moral wrath. Sadly, we only announce by that what everyone already knows, that these antic institutions no longer correspond to our actual lifestyle, and to the sentiments bred by our modern lifestyle. But that teaches us nothing on how these institutions were born, on the causes of their survival and their role in history. 

And if we take a closer look at this problem, we are constrained to say that, as contradictory and heretic as it seems, that the introduction of slavery in the past circumstances was a great progress. 

It is an established fact that humanity was born of animals, and that it needed barbaric means, nearly bestial, to get out of its barbaric phase. The ancient communities, where they survived, constitute since thousands of years the basis of the most rough form of State, the oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It is only where they dissolved that people progressed, and their first progress consisted to an increase in productivity and production, by the development of [conscripted?] work. 

 

As long as human work was so unproductive that it did not produce much more than what was necessary to survive, the increasing of productive forces, the expansion of trade, the development of State and Laws, the foundation of art and science were possible only due to a reinforced division of labor that could only have as founding principles the great division of work between the masses dealing with simple manual work, and the few privileged that were in charge of distributing the work, dealing with the trading, the State's business, and later, busying themselves with art and science. 

The most simple, and most natural form of this division of labor was precisely slavery.

Given the historical antecedents of the elder Greek world, the progress to a society founded on class opposition could only be achieved with slavery. 

Even for slaves, this was a progress. War prisoners from which the masses of slaves were made, at least now had their lives spared, whereas before, they were butchered, and even before that, in the older times, they were put in a cooking pot. 

If Mr. Eugen Dühring gargles at the sight of hellenism because it was founded on slavery, he would be also right to blame the Greeks for not having industrial steam machines, or the telegraph. "

Engels.

I love this quote because it shows that judging an ancient society by our modern standards is absurd. Of course that we find slavery abhorant. It saddens me to no end that it still exists in the 21th century (hello Dubai) and if it depended on me and an easy omnipotent wish, I would make it disappear. But that's not a sufficient for me to judge the principle of slavery as evil (I don't even believe in the concept of evil). I just recognize that once a society has evolved enough, slavery shouldn't exist in it (and yes, Europe had no necessity to enslave some of the African population, it was just pure greed). Just like once a society and its neighbors  have evolved enough, there is no need for the death penalty, forced mass conscription, or the colonization of what is perceived inferior population. As it stands, we still have not evolved enough, we still have racism, bigotry, anti intellectualism, sexism, and modern forms of exploitation in our "modern" society. We may have better laws than the Alethi or the elder Greeks, but don't be so fast to cast your judgment with modern standards. 

It has no sense to judge actions in Stormlight by our modern laws and standards. Actions are not absolute, you have to know what gave them birth, and the circumstances of their executions. Necessity is a strange thing. I view the Terror and the Comittee of Public Safety in the French Revolution as a necessity, birthed by the dire circumstances, and Robespierre as a virtuous man led to terrible actions to save his country and the Revolution. Does it mean that I would welcome Robespierre as the French president in 2017 ? storm no. Circumstances have changed, and the Comittee would have no place in our modern society. Yet I am glad it happened in 1792.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Rasha
Suppressed Spoiler OB link, just C/Ced the relevant parts.

[Calderis]

@Rasha being as it isn't obvious where that thread is placed, you should really edit that into a spoiler tag to denote Oathbringer spoilers. 

[Rasha]

5 minutes ago, Calderis said:

@Rasha being as it isn't obvious where that thread is placed, you should really edit that into a spoiler tag to denote Oathbringer spoilers. 

Oh rust, thank you, I had completely forgotten. Just edited it by C/Cing the relevant part, and suppressing the offending thread. Will be more careful in the future.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Rasha

[thejopen27]

16 hours ago, Rasha said:

Morality is not an absolute. It depends on the society in which you live, and is a product of the time and customs of a civilization. I will link a comment I made last week about slavery, when people were debating if the enslavement of the Parshendi was morally justified (because I am a lazy piece of rust that doesn't want to redact properly again on the same topic):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Many around here judge slavery by our modern occidental standards. I even saw people quoting American law to further up their points, which is a total nonsense when attempting to understand slavery in an old society. Allow me to give you a quote for thoughts :

 

"It was only slavery that made possible on a scale large enough, the division between labor and industry, and later on, the apogee of hellenism. Without slavery, no Greek State, no Art and Science produced by Greeks. Without slavery, no Roman Empire.

Without the basis of hellenism and of the Roman Empire, there would not have been a modern Europe. We should never forget that all our economic, political, and intellectual evolution has for condition a situation in which slavery was as obvious as necessary.
We could say that we have the right to say: without ancient slavery, no modern socialism. [note : the author is Engels, and he would be considered on the far left spectrum in America. Nevertheless, you can substitute socialism by capitalism in this phrase, if it better suit you as a motor of progress]. 

It cost us nothing to wage war against slavery with generic formulae, and to scorn such an infamy with all of our superior moral wrath. Sadly, we only announce by that what everyone already knows, that these antic institutions no longer correspond to our actual lifestyle, and to the sentiments bred by our modern lifestyle. But that teaches us nothing on how these institutions were born, on the causes of their survival and their role in history. 

And if we take a closer look at this problem, we are constrained to say that, as contradictory and heretic as it seems, that the introduction of slavery in the past circumstances was a great progress. 

It is an established fact that humanity was born of animals, and that it needed barbaric means, nearly bestial, to get out of its barbaric phase. The ancient communities, where they survived, constitute since thousands of years the basis of the most rough form of State, the oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It is only where they dissolved that people progressed, and their first progress consisted to an increase in productivity and production, by the development of [conscripted?] work. 

 

As long as human work was so unproductive that it did not produce much more than what was necessary to survive, the increasing of productive forces, the expansion of trade, the development of State and Laws, the foundation of art and science were possible only due to a reinforced division of labor that could only have as founding principles the great division of work between the masses dealing with simple manual work, and the few privileged that were in charge of distributing the work, dealing with the trading, the State's business, and later, busying themselves with art and science. 

The most simple, and most natural form of this division of labor was precisely slavery.

Given the historical antecedents of the elder Greek world, the progress to a society founded on class opposition could only be achieved with slavery. 

Even for slaves, this was a progress. War prisoners from which the masses of slaves were made, at least now had their lives spared, whereas before, they were butchered, and even before that, in the older times, they were put in a cooking pot. 

If Mr. Eugen Dühring gargles at the sight of hellenism because it was founded on slavery, he would be also right to blame the Greeks for not having industrial steam machines, or the telegraph. "

Engels.

I love this quote because it shows that judging an ancient society by our modern standards is absurd. Of course that we find slavery abhorant. It saddens me to no end that it still exists in the 21th century (hello Dubai) and if it depended on me and an easy omnipotent wish, I would make it disappear. But that's not a sufficient for me to judge the principle of slavery as evil (I don't even believe in the concept of evil). I just recognize that once a society has evolved enough, slavery shouldn't exist in it (and yes, Europe had no necessity to enslave some of the African population, it was just pure greed). Just like once a society and its neighbors  have evolved enough, there is no need for the death penalty, forced mass conscription, or the colonization of what is perceived inferior population. As it stands, we still have not evolved enough, we still have racism, bigotry, anti intellectualism, sexism, and modern forms of exploitation in our "modern" society. We may have better laws than the Alethi or the elder Greeks, but don't be so fast to cast your judgment with modern standards. 

It has no sense to judge actions in Stormlight by our modern laws and standards. Actions are not absolute, you have to know what gave them birth, and the circumstances of their executions. Necessity is a strange thing. I view the Terror and the Comittee of Public Safety in the French Revolution as a necessity, birthed by the dire circumstances, and Robespierre as a virtuous man led to terrible actions to save his country and the Revolution. Does it mean that I would welcome Robespierre as the French president in 2017 ? storm no. Circumstances have changed, and the Comittee would have no place in our modern society. Yet I am glad it happened in 1792.

Are you trying to say Slavery wasn't bad then because it was useful? Or that it wasn't bad because people didn't think it was bad? It was always bad, it was always wrong. Some people didn't know it was wrong, some did but thought it was convenient, and some always knew it was wrong. As long as there have been slaves, there have been slave revolts and slave uprisings and runaways. That's how I know it was always wrong, people always tried to escape. Slave masters always fought against banning slavery, they always had to be defeated in war, or completely overwhelmed politically to agree to give up slavery, no people voluntarily give it up. You know how I know it's wrong in Stormlight? The main character hates it and tries to escape until the will is beaten out of him.

Seriously dude? 

Edited October 26, 2017 by thejopen27

[Calderis]

On 10/25/2017 at 10:08 PM, thejopen27 said:

Are you trying to say Slavery wasn't bad then because it was useful? Or that it wasn't bad because people didn't think it was bad? It was always bad, it was always wrong. Some people didn't know it was wrong, some did but thought it was convenient, and some always knew it was wrong. As long as there have been slaves, there have been slave revolts and slave uprisings and runaways. That's how I know it was always wrong, people always tried to escape. You know how it's wrong in Stormlight? The main character hates it and tries to escape until the will is beaten out of him. 

And I don't mean this to be inflammatory. I don't know you're beliefs, and I'm not trying say they're wrong if these are yours. That said... 

The book of Exodus in the Bible has an entire section on the proper treatment of slaves. The book of Exodus is a book of holy law. So has slavery always been wrong or was the Bible wrong? 

I'm sure this could be mirrored in the religious texts of numerous other religions as well, this is just one of which I'm aware. 

The perception of Morality is constantly changing within society. To judge the past by modern beliefs is to deny the progress we've made as a species, and to condemn people who knew nothing better than the world they were born into. 

It takes time and knowledge for individuals and societies to grow. The argument we're having wouldn't have existed then. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Calderis

[thejopen27]

22 minutes ago, Calderis said:

And I don't mean this to be inflammatory. I don't know you're beliefs, and I'm not trying say they're wrong if these are yours. That said... 

The book of Exodus in the Bible has an entire section on the proper treatment of slaves. The book of Exodus is a book of holy law. So has slavery always been wrong or was the Bible wrong? 

I'm sure this could be mirrored in the religious texts of numerous other religions as well, this is just one of which I'm aware. 

The perception of Morality is constantly changing within society. To judge the past by modern beliefs is to deny the progress we've made as a species, and to condemn people who knew nothing better than the world they were born into. 

It takes time time and knowledge for individuals and societies to grow. The argument we're having wouldn't have existed then. 

You're right, no religion has ever condoned an immoral act before. Religions are rules people invent to justify their actions and explain what they can't understand, the old testament especially was essentially the creation myth, history, and laws of a particular tribe/people who lived on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean.The argument did exist then, it happened when a slave ran away, or led a revolt against their oppressor. Yes the Romans had tons of slaves, and they fought several famous wars against angry people tired of being enslaved. The Turks had slaves, for a brief period the Slave Soldiers took control of the whole empire and set themselves up as lords. Colonists of Hispaniola had slaves, a group of escaped slaves came one night, set all the other slaves free and they burned out and killed and fought until there were no more masters of on the western half of the island.

Did these people think Slavery was ok at the time? In the bible, how did the Israelites feel about slavery when they were in Egypt? 

I can bring this into the cosmere, was it OK for the Ska to be enslaved in Mistborn? Their religion condoned it, society found it broadly acceptable, the only people who really seemed to complain were a few idealistic students and the people enslaved. Does Kaladin condone slavery? Does he find it acceptable because people in his time find it acceptable? His religion condones it. The people in power condone it. If you asked Kaladin his opinion on slavery, I think you'd get a discussion. The people in power don't have the conversation, we don't see conversations about it often in history, but no one asked the enslaved.

You can't judge whether something is or isn't wrong on whether the person doing it thinks it's wrong. They do it because they either don't know it's wrong, or they have to much invested in it to admit it's wrong, or to act on their conscience. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by thejopen27

[thejopen27]

And yes, I'm uncomfortable that Shallan is keeping Slaves, even though she is paying them well, and shortening their sentences, and even though Brandon makes it clear they are likely debtors who entered slavery as punishment (I doubt they had a fair trial or were able to defend themselves, if they had any choice it was probably between death and slavery), and even though she offered to let them run, I am still uncomfortable that she kept them. Two characters so far have unexpectedly come into possession of a number of slaves in the Stormlight archive. One kept them as Slaves, bu agreed to pay them well, one freed them all, and then offered them well paying jobs. One just feels better to me.

[Rasha]

@thejopen27 You are missing the whole point I make. I think you should read again carefuly what I wrote, without trying to think I have an hidden agenda to promote slavery or whatever. Of course I am not saying that slavery is a good thing, because I belong in the 21th century, and I belong in a civilization that holds for primary belief that all men are born equal in rights. Slavery has no place in our modern society, and it is a good thing that it is going extinct (although it still exists in a myriad of forms, which saddens me to no end). Why am I able to make this judgement ? Because others before me have make the work of developping the core beliefs of our society. Before me, there was multiple philosphers doing the heavy lifting of creating new ideals, like Rousseau creating the idea of Social Contract (The Society should provide at least the minimum for all its participants). And before Rousseau, there was a whole movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism    ) dedicated to create the idea that all humans should be treated equally. Before that, these ideas did not exist, and people of the ancient time would probably mock us, if we were to bring the idea of equality for all into a discussion.

To be accepted into common morality, these ideas had first to be created. Then, they had to be propagated, and they had to win the battle with all others idea circulating at the time. In the ditch of lost battles you would find ideas such as eugenics that we find totally abhorrant now. And when these idea won the idealistic battle, they still had to be applied on the society. Which did not go easily For exemple, the idea "all men are born and remain equal in right" was not implemented on a large societal scale until the French Revolution. And even then, Monarchies and Empires in Europe tried to repress it in blood. You can not judge people from the Middle Age for not acting upon our modern beliefs, for they did not have the tools to do so. You are able to claim your morality as a good thing because you stand on the shoulder of giants (and ven then, I would say that claim is dubious). Just take a moment to look back and appreciate how far we have travelled.

Morality change. And I would like to think it is a good thing. I hope someday, humans of the future will look back on the 21th century in disgust (like you to to the antic times,where slavery abounded), for it would mean that humanity as a whole has progressed, and left behind things such as racism, bigotry and hatred, or letting people die of hunger because doing otherwise is not profitable in terms of monetary gains. Hold no morality as absolute, and always question why things are. Doing otherwise is to risk intransigeant rightousness, and there is nothing more dangerous than that. I am sorry if I offend you, for I do not want to be rude, but if you are not willing to question why you deem your actions moral then you are no better than a fanatic zealot.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Rasha

[Yata]

43 minutes ago, Rasha said:

Morality change. And I would like to think it is a good thing. I hope someday, humans of the future will look back on the 21th century in disgust (like you to to the antic times,where slavery abounded), for it would mean that humanity as a whole has progressed, and left behind things such as racism, bigotry and hatred, or letting people die of hunger because doing otherwise is not profitable in terms of monetary gains. Hold no morality as absolute, and always question why things are. Doing otherwise is to risk intransigeant rightousness, and there is nothing more dangerous than that. I am sorry if I offend you, for I do not want to be rude, but if you are not willing to question why you deem your actions moral then you are no better than a fanatic zealot.

This.

Try to figure morality without understand the Mister X's reasons, mindset and context is simply futile.

[thejopen27]

15 hours ago, Rasha said:

@thejopen27 You are missing the whole point I make. I think you should read again carefuly what I wrote, without trying to think I have an hidden agenda to promote slavery or whatever. Of course I am not saying that slavery is a good thing, because I belong in the 21th century, and I belong in a civilization that holds for primary belief that all men are born equal in rights. Slavery has no place in our modern society, and it is a good thing that it is going extinct (although it still exists in a myriad of forms, which saddens me to no end). Why am I able to make this judgement ? Because others before me have make the work of developping the core beliefs of our society. Before me, there was multiple philosphers doing the heavy lifting of creating new ideals, like Rousseau creating the idea of Social Contract (The Society should provide at least the minimum for all its participants). And before Rousseau, there was a whole movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism    ) dedicated to create the idea that all humans should be treated equally. Before that, these ideas did not exist, and people of the ancient time would probably mock us, if we were to bring the idea of equality for all into a discussion.

To be accepted into common morality, these ideas had first to be created. Then, they had to be propagated, and they had to win the battle with all others idea circulating at the time. In the ditch of lost battles you would find ideas such as eugenics that we find totally abhorrant now. And when these idea won the idealistic battle, they still had to be applied on the society. Which did not go easily For exemple, the idea "all men are born and remain equal in right" was not implemented on a large societal scale until the French Revolution. And even then, Monarchies and Empires in Europe tried to repress it in blood. You can not judge people from the Middle Age for not acting upon our modern beliefs, for they did not have the tools to do so. You are able to claim your morality as a good thing because you stand on the shoulder of giants (and ven then, I would say that claim is dubious). Just take a moment to look back and appreciate how far we have travelled.

Morality change. And I would like to think it is a good thing. I hope someday, humans of the future will look back on the 21th century in disgust (like you to to the antic times,where slavery abounded), for it would mean that humanity as a whole has progressed, and left behind things such as racism, bigotry and hatred, or letting people die of hunger because doing otherwise is not profitable in terms of monetary gains. Hold no morality as absolute, and always question why things are. Doing otherwise is to risk intransigeant rightousness, and there is nothing more dangerous than that. I am sorry if I offend you, for I do not want to be rude, but if you are not willing to question why you deem your actions moral then you are no better than a fanatic zealot.

Ahh... being called a zealot by the guy defending slavery, AT THE TIME, because they didn't know better. Ignorance is not a defense for an individual, why should it be a defense for a society? The fact that the majority (or at least the ones in power) was fine with with a practice doesn't mean that practice was moral. Look at it from a human level. You're ignoring my main argument, you're acting like the people enslaved, raided, murdered, burned out of their land, raped, beaten, whipped, stolen from their families, pressed into military service didn't have a valid claim to humanity. You're claiming no one new it was wrong, are you claiming there were no victims? Were they too stupid to weep for their murdered children? To ignorant to revolt against tyrannical ruler-ship? Did slaves passively allow themselves to be captured because it was accepted at the time? Why are you pretending they weren't human beings who had human desires and concerns and what they most people wanted above all was to be left alone and in peace.

What people view as immoral is individual to that person. Does Kaladin find Slavery moral? Does he think the Lighteyes are in right to be in power? Kaladin has been brutally treated by those in power in his society. Does he have to shrug his shoulders and let it go, because it's the commonly accept position? You're right, Kelsier should have left the Lord Ruler in power and the Skaa enslaved. It was morally accepted at the time. 

Having good intentions or believing something is acceptable doesn't excuse every possible crime, actions have consequences. Didn't your high school English class have the "What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right." poster on the wall?

[Mestiv]

This discussion is getting pretty heat up. I believe we should all slow down a bit and really assume that the other side does not have bad intentions or anything, ok? 

On 26.10.2017 at 10:30 AM, Rasha said:

I am sorry if I offend you, for I do not want to be rude, but if you are not willing to question why you deem your actions moral then you are no better than a fanatic zealot.

Rasha, saying "I don't mean to offend..." and then proceeding to say something that's pretty offensive is not the way to go. I wouldn't assume that thejopen27 doesn't ever think upon morality of his actions.

@thejopen27 I don't think Rasha is trying to say what you think they do. Seriously, please assume best intentions and highest moral standards from one another and interpret your messages accordingly. That should allow us for a more calm discussion.

[wingedScribe]

Just throwing my hat into the ring here, I think that the series itself shows us a fairly good metric for deciding whether a character is "good" or "evil." One of the repeating motifs is whether or not it is "right" to sacrifice people for an ambiguous greater good. Examples of this range from Tien's unit being sacrificed to things as large as the Diagram causing massive war and death for the possibility of saving Roshar. On a regular basis, the truly heroic moments of central characters are when they stand up to this mentality and refuse to capitulate. Kaladin doesn't kill Elhokar. Dalinar trades his Shardblade for the lives of all of Sadeas' bridgemen, and he and Kaladin have an exchange that encapsulates this in a microcosm: 

Quote

“What is a man’s life worth?” Dalinar asked softly. 
“The slavemasters say one is worth about two emerald broams,” Kaladin said,frowning. 
“And what do you say?” 
“A life is priceless,” he said immediately, quoting his father.  
Dalinar smiled, wrinkle lines extending from the corners of his eyes. “Coincidentally, that is the exact value of a Shardblade. So today, you and your men sacrificed to buy me twenty-six hundred priceless lives. And all I had to repay you with was a single priceless sword. I call that a bargain.” 

Now, this isn't a clear dividing line, but there are people who, regardless of their intentions, fall on either side of these lines with their actions. I think someone can have the purest motives and be evil--and I believe that whether or not a character is evil can change, it's not a fixed quantity. But this equation is important, and in-context of the series itself is used as a dividing line between the characters who are moral--who are our heroes--and our antagonists. It seems fitting, for a world so defined by the presence or absence of Honor. 

Interestingly, this distinction in the books places the Sons of Honor--at least, those we've seen--on the distinctly dishonorable side of the line, along with Sadeas, Taravangian, and Moash. 

[Stormrunner1730]

1 hour ago, wingedScribe said:

Just throwing my hat into the ring here, I think that the series itself shows us a fairly good metric for deciding whether a character is "good" or "evil." One of the repeating motifs is whether or not it is "right" to sacrifice people for an ambiguous greater good. Examples of this range from Tien's unit being sacrificed to things as large as the Diagram causing massive war and death for the possibility of saving Roshar. On a regular basis, the truly heroic moments of central characters are when they stand up to this mentality and refuse to capitulate. Kaladin doesn't kill Elhokar. Dalinar trades his Shardblade for the lives of all of Sadeas' bridgemen, and he and Kaladin have an exchange that encapsulates this in a microcosm: 

Now, this isn't a clear dividing line, but there are people who, regardless of their intentions, fall on either side of these lines with their actions. I think someone can have the purest motives and be evil--and I believe that whether or not a character is evil can change, it's not a fixed quantity. But this equation is important, and in-context of the series itself is used as a dividing line between the characters who are moral--who are our heroes--and our antagonists. It seems fitting, for a world so defined by the presence or absence of Honor. 

Interestingly, this distinction in the books places the Sons of Honor--at least, those we've seen--on the distinctly dishonorable side of the line, along with Sadeas, Taravangian, and Moash. 

First off, I absolutely love that scene between Kaladin and Dalinar.  I agree that whether or not a character is "evil" can change.  But the idea of having pure motives and being "evil" goes back to my original point about good and evil being defined by a point of view.  Taravangian might view many of his own actions as evil.  However, enough people view them as at least necessary to allow him to have an inner circle of people who know everything that he's trying to do and still willingly help him.  I would agree that certain actions could be argued as being evil, but once you apply the context, it gets murkier.

For example, was the assassination of Gavilar evil?  The Parshendi leaders broke a very newly minted peace treaty and killed him.  However, to them, whatever Gavilar was doing that could have resulted in the return of their "gods" was much more evil than the idea of killing him.  (I personally don't have a stance on this yet since I think we know too little about this event/Gavilar in general, but it serves as a good example for one's viewpoint.) 

[kiapet]

On 10/24/2017 at 10:26 AM, bo.montier said:

Oohh, yeah, that's a good one. 

I'll reply with this: Just War Doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
In particular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Jus_in_bello
Most interpretations of those doctrines justify the US in those actions. If you are fighting a Just War, which the US was (again, according to most interpretations of those doctrines) then the aggressor is the one morally culpable for the war. By starting the war unjustly, Japan directly caused the Atomic Bombs. The United States did what was necessary to bring an end to the war.

HUGE DISCLAIMER - I'm an American and obviously flawed/biased in my thinking, but the point is well taken.

Sorry, but I have to call out your use of Just War Theory here. Just War Theory does not blindly approve of any war fought with just intention; just methods must also be used for the war to be considered justified. That's what Jus in bello means, justice in or during war. The use of atomic weapons in any circumstance is near-universally considered to fail Just War criteria. First, deliberately targeting civilians is a huge no-no in JWT; while the principle of double intent justifies some collateral damage, your first intention needs to be to target military bases/people, and the numbers of civilian lives lost need to be small. Bombing an entire city with the intention of killing its civilians to intimidate the country into surrendering is strongly against JWT. Second is JWT's principle of proportionality, which states that the good resulting from the action must outweigh the bad. Atomic bombs, which destroy cities, kill thousands indiscriminately, kill thousands more slowly via radiation, leave stretches of land uninhabitable for generations, and pollute surrounding areas, are considered to fail this principle pretty much automatically due to the sheer degree and scale of suffering they cause. Not to mention the possibility of starting a nuclear war, which would obliterate all life as we know it- which almost was the result of the United States creating and using this weapon.

[Calderis]

@wingedScribe the distinction in the story is not as clear cut as you make it seem. Alongside those things you have Shallan's arc,whuch is much more morally ambiguous. Jasnah in the alley. Adolin's actions at the end of WoR. Everything is colored by the perception of the character whose eyes we see through at the time. Some of those acts seem completely justified, and others questionable. 

If the morality is completely clear cut, that is in the mind of the reader, not the text. 

[Stormrunner1730]

9 hours ago, Calderis said:

@wingedScribe the distinction in the story is not as clear cut as you make it seem. Alongside those things you have Shallan's arc,whuch is much more morally ambiguous. Jasnah in the alley. Adolin's actions at the end of WoR. Everything is colored by the perception of the character whose eyes we see through at the time. Some of those acts seem completely justified, and others questionable. 

If the morality is completely clear cut, that is in the mind of the reader, not the text. 

I love the scene with Jasnah in the alley.  It's probably the best scene in the series in terms of moral ambiguity (which is the point of what Jasnah is teaching Shallan).  

In order to have an absolute "good" or "evil" every single human on Earth would need to agree with that point of view.  If even one person dissents, there is no longer an absolute good or evil.  Humans are too varied in their upbringings and inherent personalities for there to ever be an issue where ever human in existence agrees on an absolute moral "right" and "wrong". 

[Mulk]

5 hours ago, Stormrunner1730 said:

I love the scene with Jasnah in the alley.  It's probably the best scene in the series in terms of moral ambiguity (which is the point of what Jasnah is teaching Shallan).  

In order to have an absolute "good" or "evil" every single human on Earth would need to agree with that point of view.  If even one person dissents, there is no longer an absolute good or evil.  Humans are too varied in their upbringings and inherent personalities for there to ever be an issue where ever human in existence agrees on an absolute moral "right" and "wrong". 

That's not how absolute morality works.  If a being exists who created all of this (and in this pretend universe we have a WoB that there is), then what that being has to say about morality is the absolute standard if he/she/it/they wants it to be.  Humans may not know it or agree with it, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.  If the God Beyond or Adonalsium had anything to say about morality, then what they say is the standard by which the Cosmere will be judged, and it doesn't matter of a cretin like Sadeas or a paragon of virtue says yes or no.  We just as readers don't know where this stands or if they made any such decree.

[Stormrunner1730]

28 minutes ago, Mulk said:

That's not how absolute morality works.  If a being exists who created all of this (and in this pretend universe we have a WoB that there is), then what that being has to say about morality is the absolute standard if he/she/it/they wants it to be.  Humans may not know it or agree with it, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.  If the God Beyond or Adonalsium had anything to say about morality, then what they say is the standard by which the Cosmere will be judged, and it doesn't matter of a cretin like Sadeas or a paragon of virtue says yes or no.  We just as readers don't know where this stands or if they made any such decree.

I totally agree with the idea that (if) there is a "higher being" then what they set as a moral standard is a moral standard.  Yes, Adolnasium is said being in the cosmere.  That being said, we don't yet know if Adonalsium ever set that moral standard.  Brandon is very careful about prescribing labels of "good" and "evil", so I very much doubt that he will ever make a statement in the cosmere about what Adonalsium thinks the "moral standard" is.  The over-arching question of the cosmere above all else is: What happens when humans become deities?  

Outside the cosmere (in the "real world" so-to-speak), we don't know if there is a being like Adonalsium who sets the moral standard.  Or at least, humanity does not agree upon it.  If we did, there would not be the multitude of religions around the world (all of which have differing moral imperatives).  Now, I would tend to cite Joseph Campbell's "Hero of a Thousand Faces" as an example of certain common threads that run throughout many different religions and mythologies (largely based on different milestones in the human life cycle).  Regardless, there is no consensus "higher being" that all humans agree on (nor is there proof of one), and so there cannot be an absolute moral "right" or "wrong" that applies to all humans.  I don't mean to make this a big discussion about religion, but does what I'm saying make sense?

For the record: I love this whole conversation, so I'm just curious on people's thoughts on this type of stuff.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by Stormrunner1730

[Mulk]

38 minutes ago, Stormrunner1730 said:

I totally agree with the idea that (if) there is a "higher being" then what they set as a moral standard is a moral standard.  Yes, Adolnasium is said being in the cosmere.  That being said, we don't yet know if Adonalsium ever set that moral standard.  Brandon is very careful about prescribing labels of "good" and "evil", so I very much doubt that he will ever make a statement in the cosmere about what Adonalsium thinks the "moral standard" is.  The over-arching question of the cosmere above all else is: What happens when humans become deities?  

Outside the cosmere (in the "real world" so-to-speak), we don't know if there is a being like Adonalsium who sets the moral standard.  Or at least, humanity does not agree upon it.  If we did, there would not be the multitude of religions around the world (all of which have differing moral imperatives).  Now, I would tend to cite Joseph Campbell's "Hero of a Thousand Faces" as an example of certain common threads that run throughout many different religions and mythologies (largely based on different milestones in the human life cycle).  Regardless, there is no consensus "higher being" that all humans agree on (nor is there proof of one), and so there cannot be an absolute moral "right" or "wrong" that applies to all humans.  I don't mean to make this a big discussion about religion, but does what I'm saying make sense?

For the record: I love this whole conversation, so I'm just curious on people's thoughts on this type of stuff.  

For the record: I am a Christian minister and believe there is such a higher being.  I also agree with you 100% or nearly so with regard to the Cosmere - we don't know if such a standard was set or if it was, if it is still extant given Adonalsium's current state.  My point was merely that humans voting on the standard does not make it absolute.  Humans are not absolute, not in the Cosmere and not in our world.  If such a thing exists, it exists independent of our feelings about it.   Feelings are a perfectly terrible basis for right and wrong anyway as they view everything from the lens of self. 

I don't really want to argue real world religion in such a thread as this as I don't think this is the appropriate place for it, so I'll just say I disagree with you at most points except that we have no consensus on who is right.

[Calderis]

A similar discussion just went down in the Oathbringer spoiler board. I'm obviously not going to post any spoilers, but I do want to quote a couple of my posts as I find them relevant here.

First in response to a question by @Steeldancer about why atheists tend towards relative morality. 

2 hours ago, Calderis said:

Because without a divine dictate to set morality, where does it come from? 

Morality is, in my view, a construct that is absolutely necessary for society to exist, but it's still a construct. 

An absolute morality requires an external force to decide what is right and what is wrong. I reject that idea. That doesn't mean that I think it's alright to go out and kill people wantonly or steal, or abuse. 

There will always be repercussions to actions, and even the best case scenario is never going to be the optimal outcome for everyone. 

The very idea of a morality that would find someone at fault for actions that, in context, are the best possible thing you could do, seems absurd to me. 

If killing is an absolute wrong, morally, then that should apply across the board, even in religions though, this doesn't hold. Wars happen that people blessed by God kill their enemies and it is condoned. 

Something is an absolute or it isn't. I believe that it isn't. 

@Marethyu316 said this in response to the third segment of that post, with my response following. 

Quote

Of course, a socially constructed morality also requires someone to decide what is right and wrong. Someone will stand in the place of God or the State or whatever and decide what is moral and what is not, and whether you're an Athiest or a Christian that person will at some point do so without all the necessary knowledge to abide by that moral standard. Actually, that will be the case almost all the time.

2 hours ago, Calderis said:

Not someone, all of us. Morality is a social construct. "The herd instinct in the individual." 

What is acceptable behavior evolves over time as we, as a species, change. This is why Morality varies culturally.

An individual is too variable, whether it be from mental illness or just poor choices, to decide morality. A society as a whole enacts the repercussions of its morality on those who break with what is acceptable.

You can watch the effects of this over time. Things that were normal and right and the way of the world 15, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago, no longer are. And things that were considered agregious sins in the past, despite harming no one, are acceptable now. 

Governments are forced to change because of the ways that their people feel about issues. No single entity decides what is right and what is wrong. It's the collective viewpoint of a society that does so, whether it's intended or not. 

I wanted to add them here, as they seem relevant to the current conversation. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Calderis