Evil In The Stormlight Archive

[Hoids Imaginary Friend]

Hohohoo.!

** claps @Calderis ** 

Let the mob rule!! ** fist pump **

Ok ok, i know thats not what you meant and i actually agree with you.. Mostly.. Philosophically

Youve worded it better than I could and this is a great debate considering Mr S's application of morality in his works which appears to me to be an underlying theme of all the Cosmere books.

Though I dont think morality can be so easily defined.

As a species our definition is a bit fluid because of culture, religion and history (connection / identity?). I feel we could tangent this to the ye'ole nature vs nurture (divided by epigenetics) though that may just be derivative for this context.

Hmm.. So an individuals idea of morality is essentually biased but a collective agreement is.. just? Well, considering morality is a creation of humanity i can see that, though something seems wrong there and I just cant smell it. Someone go get Galad (WoT) and sort this out.

Ahhh, morality and religion.. morality in religion.. religious morality!!?

** looks to the heavens **

'Right, im sure you had your reasons to perform mass genocide and flood the planet. Im not argueing, im sure we deserved it. But.. but we have got it right this time haven't we?

** clears internet browser history **

Havent we?

Look, whats really got me twisted is i heard you saved only 2 of all those innocent animals right? Only 2 though? 2..? And you got them all right? And they aaalllll survived the storm? All 2 of them? And they didnt eat each other? Ok, what im concerned about.. its just.. well.. the little carnivore inside me is kinda worried that we'll never get our hands on (humanely of course) some of these possibly tasty extinct criters because you chucked a tantrum..

Sorry. Your right of course.. bacon is awesome.'

Ok, gunna turn the wheel back and say something Cosmerically attuned. And im going to be mysterious and put it in a hidden virtual box! (that may have not come out right)

Oathbringer spoiler

Spoiler

Morality aside.. Sadeas was a d*ck.

Or was he?

Ok, lets bring morality back and I want you guys to pick up your empathy stick and really try here:

You are an important person in a society that approves of killing. There is another important person who is bigger than you and scarier though thankfully he is on your side. But he still terrifies you. He is an unstoppable force, a monster. Than one day he gets dull, dim, soft. But he still terrifies you.

Would you:

A) burn a little prayer for him?

B.) attempt to kill him directly?

C) burn a little prayer for you?

D) attempt to kill him indirectly?

E) let your wife sort it out?

F) other?

G) all of the above?

Just a thought experiment as sympathy is not always deserved but empathy should always be considered, especially when getting all righteousnessly and judging people.

My pick: F - other - run into the shadows and cry

!~ HIF ~!

Edited November 2, 2017 by Hoids Imaginary Friend

[Toaster Retribution]

I think that morality is absolute, but also, to a certain extent, non-absolute. As a religious person, I believe that there is a God, and that he dictates what is moral and what isn't. But @Calderis is absolutely right in that morality in our society also changes with time depending on how the majority of the people feel about different issues. The conclusion I see is that morality, and right and wrong in a society is indeed a construct, based on the current trends and opinions of the population. But then I also see some kind of true, non-changeable morality in God (the use of the word true here does not mean that I look down on other peoples views on morality, I just couldn't come up with a better word). The morality of God/religion (the Catholic Church in my case) is what I choose to believe in and follow, but those who aren't religious will obviously follow the ideas of their society (in most cases, anyway). Wether morality is absolute or not thus depends on who you are and what your worldview looks like.

And yes, I realize that this post is a very long way of saying that everyone will see morality in a different light. 

[Thanatos]

Morality is subjective not objective within societies.

If God dictates morality then morality is nothing short of tyranty! 

For example: slavery is ok, so says God. Or murder all male homosexuals, or murder all females who say their vigins prior to marriage only for the newly husband to find out shes not, or murder all unbelievers who refuse conversion. 

Is it moraly ok to hide away and give your child freewill and high intelligence, then torture them for eternity because they cannot see the evidence of your existance and disbelieve your existance when they die?

If God said it was ok (aka meaning morally ok) to rape a chick so long as you marry her after, would that be morally ok? Thereby condemning the victim to her rapist for life!!! Who is being punished here?

...

Morals are social constructs. For example... in Australia its immoral to kill a female who is alone in the presence of a non-relative... yet this is morally ok to Muslims. 

Morality is not something that is absolute. And not determined by a God, but a social construct. 

God does not dictate morality, society does. 

Damnation!!, you heard of the 5 monkeys in a cage with the bananna? 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Thanatos

[bo.montier]

On 10/31/2017 at 7:23 PM, kiapet said:

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.

The Jus in bello can also be interpreted as to using the least means possible to end the war. I'd suggest that the Atomic bombs were the least means possible, but that they HAD to be dropped on civilian centers to have the appropriate effect. 
The loss of life would have been exponentially higher had the war continued. This includes loss of life on the American side, which satisfies the proportional reaction.
There was no possibility of starting a nuclear war at the time, since no one else had them. Using them now might be a different story.
But, as I said, I'm American, so I am not unbiased in this belief. I am fully aware that there are other interpretations of the theory that disagree with the proportionality of the atomic bombs as a means to end the war with Japan.

I may have overstated my case when I said "Most interpretations" for that I apologize.

[bo.montier]

8 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I think that morality is absolute, but also, to a certain extent, non-absolute. As a religious person, I believe that there is a God, and that he dictates what is moral and what isn't. But @Calderis is absolutely right in that morality in our society also changes with time depending on how the majority of the people feel about different issues. The conclusion I see is that morality, and right and wrong in a society is indeed a construct, based on the current trends and opinions of the population. But then I also see some kind of true, non-changeable morality in God (the use of the word true here does not mean that I look down on other peoples views on morality, I just couldn't come up with a better word). The morality of God/religion (the Catholic Church in my case) is what I choose to believe in and follow, but those who aren't religious will obviously follow the ideas of their society (in most cases, anyway). Wether morality is absolute or not thus depends on who you are and what your worldview looks like.

And yes, I realize that this post is a very long way of saying that everyone will see morality in a different light. 

I'd say there are things that are absolute and things that are cultural and things that are circumstantial.

Murder, Rape, Theft...These things are absolutely wrong. 

Killing for other reasons -- Level of moral culpability depends on intention and circumstances

Modesty standards -- These are culturally defined

[Toaster Retribution]

8 hours ago, Thanatos said:

Morality is subjective not objective within societies.

If God dictates morality then morality is nothing short of tyranty! 

For example: slavery is ok, so says God. Or murder all male homosexuals, or murder all females who say their vigins prior to marriage only for the newly husband to find out shes not, or murder all unbelievers who refuse conversion. 

Is it moraly ok to hide away and give your child freewill and high intelligence, then torture them for eternity because they cannot see the evidence of your existance and disbelieve your existance when they die?

If God said it was ok (aka meaning morally ok) to rape a chick so long as you marry her after, would that be morally ok? Thereby condemning the victim to her rapist for life!!! Who is being punished here?

...

Morals are social constructs. For example... in Australia its immoral to kill a female who is alone in the presence of a non-relative... yet this is morally ok to Muslims. 

Morality is not something that is absolute. And not determined by a God, but a social construct. 

God does not dictate morality, society does. 

Damnation!!, you heard of the 5 monkeys in a cage with the bananna? 

I'd say that the god you talk about would be evil, if he thought that rape and torture were okay things to do. Fortunately I (and most other religious people) doesn't believe in a God like that. 

And yes, God decide stuff. He is not democratic. Why? Well, because he is omnipotent and knows what is best for us. 

[The Allomantic Metalhead]

On 9/27/2017 at 3:22 PM, bo.montier said:

See, I don't get this. Wrath and Hatred are righteous in the right circumstances. It is GOOD to hate murder and rape, it is GOOD to want to destroy evil, therefore Odium could be a good thing/entity, if only his methods weren't so dang evil.

Odium + Honor?

[bo.montier]

18 hours ago, The Allomantic Metalhead said:

Odium + Honor?

Yeah, honorable hatred, but you need more, I think. Someone can be honorable in the manner in which they pursue evil. You need righteousness, like a true love of what is good.

[Calderis]

4 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

Yeah, honorable hatred, but you need more, I think. Someone can be honorable in the manner in which they pursue evil. You need righteousness, like a true love of what is good.

Which is a quality foreign to the Shards. The moral leanings of any shard will be determined by the Vessel. 

[The Allomantic Metalhead]

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

Which is a quality foreign to the Shards. The moral leanings of any shard will be determined by the Vessel. 

indeed

[bo.montier]

7 hours ago, Calderis said:

Which is a quality foreign to the Shards. The moral leanings of any shard will be determined by the Vessel. 

Right 100%, in my imagining righteousness is either one of the shards we don't know about, or was a trait of adonalsium itself. I mean, even preservation can be twisted into evil. Imagine locking everything away to preserve it, never allowing it life, or will, or freedom. It's like locking up a child to protect them from the outside world but never letting them live.

But I imagine that when the 16 are combined righteousness is one of the unexpected result of the various intents combining. Like when you combine a feruchemical power with an allomantic one to get an effect different from either alone...There's a word for this in the Ars Arcanum, I think, just can't remember it.

[Calderis]

2 hours ago, bo.montier said:

But I imagine that when the 16 are combined righteousness is one of the unexpected result of the various intents combining. Like when you combine a feruchemical power with an allomantic one to get an effect different from either alone...There's a word for this in the Ars Arcanum, I think, just can't remember it.

There's not actually, though the non-canon term we use is resonance. 

And I disagree. I think Adonalsium developed sapience without a Vessel, and thus like the Shards is completely amoral. I believe the consequences of that, combined with its unbelievable level of power were the driving force behind the shattering. 

It wasn't evil, but it wasn't good either. As such, Adonalsium was not interested in what was best for the life it had created, it was only interested in creating.

[+Extesian]

2 hours ago, bo.montier said:

Right 100%, in my imagining righteousness is either one of the shards we don't know about, or was a trait of adonalsium itself. I mean, even preservation can be twisted into evil. Imagine locking everything away to preserve it, never allowing it life, or will, or freedom. It's like locking up a child to protect them from the outside world but never letting them live.

But I imagine that when the 16 are combined righteousness is one of the unexpected result of the various intents combining. Like when you combine a feruchemical power with an allomantic one to get an effect different from either alone...There's a word for this in the Ars Arcanum, I think, just can't remember it.

Cal is right there's no canon word to my knowledge. Khriss describes it in BoM ars arcanum which is what you're thinking of. 

Quote

COMBINATIONS

It is possible on Scadrial to be born with ability to access both Allomancy and Feruchemy. This has been of specific interest to me lately, as the mixing of different types of Investiture has curious effects. One needs look only at what has happened on Roshar to find this manifested—two powers, combined, often have an almost chemical reaction. Instead of getting out exactly what you put in, you get something new. On Scadrial, someone with one Allomantic power and one Feruchemical power is called “Twinborn.” The effects here are more subtle than they are when mixing Surges on Roshar, but I am convinced that each unique combination also creates something distinctive. Not just two powers, you could say, but two powers . . . and an effect. This demands further study.

 

[Yata]

On 2/11/2017 at 10:29 PM, Toaster Retribution said:

I'd say that the god you talk about would be evil, if he thought that rape and torture were okay things to do. Fortunately I (and most other religious people) doesn't believe in a God like that. 

And yes, God decide stuff. He is not democratic. Why? Well, because he is omnipotent and knows what is best for us. 

Actually the three prevalent monotheistic religions are ok with those stuffs. Are the people who over the time decided that God's Word has to be mitigated.

Now I don't know what your religion is, but both the Bible and the Koran are fine with slavery and murder for honor (with the causes of "for honor" change between the text) and they are ok in killing a raped girl just because it was raped.

Now I don't want to criticate the religions as this is not the rightful topic to talk about this kind of things. But your actually moral code is build by people who read your "holy text of reference" and decided that "x is ok, y is not, z is a mostrousity, w is not in the text but if I read this paragrapher I could make it fit with my line of thoughts"....your moral is man made not divine made.

[Toaster Retribution]

9 minutes ago, Yata said:

Actually the three prevalent monotheistic religions are ok with those stuffs. Are the people who over the time decided that God's Word has to be mitigated.

Now I don't know what your religion is, but both the Bible and the Koran are fine with slavery and murder for honor (with the causes of "for honor" change between the text) and they are ok in killing a raped girl just because it was raped.

Now I don't want to criticate the religions as this is not the rightful topic to talk about this kind of things. But your actually moral code is build by people who read your "holy text of reference" and decided that "x is ok, y is not, z is a mostrousity, w is not in the text but if I read this paragrapher I could make it fit with my line of thoughts"....your moral is man made not divine made.

I am catholic, and while you are probably correct about the fact that the Bible has wierd stuff in it, Jesus himself never allowed murders of any kind, and his sentiments are the deciding factor in what catholics believe. 

You do however make a very good point about that humans read holy texts with the goal of making them fit their own lines of thought. And it is also true that some things (the abortion issue for example) has been decided by church leaders, and not by God. That said, those leaders have tried to do what they think fits with what Jesus would have wanted. So the goal is to have morality madeby God, but humans are humans, and thus open to fail.