[OB] Treatment of the parshman

[Dreamstorm]

17 minutes ago, aemetha said:

Well, it might not be that clear. Species is usually defined as the largest group in which the individuals that make up the group can produce fertile offspring. By that definition listeners and humans would be of the same species. It's not that wild a proposition really given that we earthbound humans are the result of neanderthal and homo-sapiens coupling.

I would assume in world that Adonalsium either created both races to be of the same species, or he created one race on many worlds and the unique ecology of Roshar led to some pretty distinct divergence from the listeners in the passage of time. Personally I lean toward the second scenario in that. Humans are widely disseminated throughout the cosmere and we have seen the creation of new humans previously so it's not a stretch to have had them created identically in different locations and then take divergent evolutionary paths while retaining the ability to interbreed. The rest of Roshars native wildlife has quite clearly adapted to the unique nature of Roshar in an evolutionary manner.

Yes, that's what I was thinking on species. Reproductive viability is the key (horses can actually also produce live, but sterile offspring with zebras!)

I read a WoB somewhere today that there were three strains of humanoid on Yolen pre-shattering. (I'll try to find it later unless anyone else knows it.) We know that both humans and Parshendi arrived prior to the shards though, so I don't think the Investiture can be the reason for the difference. (My understanding of Investiture is fairly elementary though, so could very well be incorrect about this.) Do we know if humanoids came from anywhere other than Yolen?

[aemetha]

2 minutes ago, Dreamstorm said:

Do we know if humanoids came from anywhere other than Yolen?

Well, the incident I referred to with humans being created occurred on Scadrial, so there are at least two instances of humans having been created occurring on different worlds. I believe the third humanoid race is Siah Aimians.

[Dreamstorm]

21 minutes ago, aemetha said:

Well, the incident I referred to with humans being created occurred on Scadrial, so there are at least two instances of humans having been created occurring on different worlds. I believe the third humanoid race is Siah Aimians.

Yes! Created by Ruin and Preservation when they set up their compromise, right? I remember reading somewhere (AU?) that was one of two instances where humans/humanoids did not pre-date the planet's shards. (Or maybe it was the other way around. I'm definitely out of my league on Cosmere knowledge, so apologies if I keep f-ing stuff up. On that note, if anyone wants to answer my Q&A on shards and shattering, I'd greatly appreciate it )

[frozndevl]

7 hours ago, kiapet said:

Okay, I think we're arguing at least three different things here.

First, was keeping the Parshmen enslaved wrong? I argued that this is an unambiguous yes, as keeping a sentient race in slavery is pretty much always wrong and we have proof the Parshmen suffered from how they were treated.

Second, are the modern humans "guilty" for enslaving a group of people they had no way of knowing were more than cattle? This kind of depends on your definition of guilty- if it's determined by intention, then the answer is no because they didn't know, but if it's determined by the results of one's actions then they were still complicit in causing great suffering to an entire group of people. I would argue that they weren't at fault, necessarily, but they are as a people responsible for the effects of their society, and for making up for whatever wrongs they discover have been committed. Once the humans realized the Parshmen are people, the humans would be morally obligated to give the Parshmen whatever reparations they could. I doubt this is how the humans will react.

Finally, which I believe was the original question posed, was it wrong for the humans to enslave the Parshmen in the first place, or was it the "best" or least evil option? I think we need more information to tell for sure, but I highly doubt that either genocide or slavery were the only two options available, especially as we have proof from the Parshendi that the Parsh-people were likely mostly Voidbringers against their will and were capable of living as a normal society. It seems more likely that the humans enslaved the Parsh-people as victors of war generally do, and mentally imprisoned them as well, which is just plain wrong.

I really think that your first two points are saying the same thing. Is it wrong to keep them enslaved is just another way of saying are humans guilty for doing it.

Here's an argument, all the evidence that someone committed a given crime says that "Joe" did it, and he is imprisoned. Years later, you later find out that the everyone in the world lacked the perspective to see that Joe was innocent and NOW you have knowledge that the evidence was wrong (and there was no shenanigans from law enforcement). At the time was it wrong to have imprisoned Joe? No it wasn't. The only way you can say yes is with that future knowledge. In this case, throughout the millenia (or however long it was they were enslaved) there was no evidence of the Parshmen being a sentient or sapient species. To this I would say that the answer to both your proposed questions is No.

As for the third question about the original enslavement I disagree that once they were made no-form, there were other options. You can't put the cat back in the bag, as they say, so once the Parshmen were created, they had to be dealt with. Allowing them to die out seems immoral. Is leveraging their labour to help them and you survive and prosper immoral? I guess they could have been directed to do just enough task to keep themselves alive, but then that gets us into very unrealistic, idealistic scenarios about what a medieval level mind was able to do. I think the question that needs to be asked is "What was the motivation for creating the no-form Parshmen?" If it was to eliminate a potential threat, was that done with or without knowledge of what this severed Connection would do to the species? If it was to end a war, and this was the alternative, letting them die out might have been seen as okay. Who knows, I'm tired and thinking myself in circles.

In summary, in hindsight, it was wrong to sever their Connection, or maybe it wasn't. However, once it was done, it was in everyone's best interest to keep them alive. I don't think it would be realistic to expect any person to only direct them to keep themselves alive. This is fun.

[kiapet]

1 hour ago, frozndevl said:

I really think that your first two points are saying the same thing. Is it wrong to keep them enslaved is just another way of saying are humans guilty for doing it.

Here's an argument, all the evidence that someone committed a given crime says that "Joe" did it, and he is imprisoned. Years later, you later find out that the everyone in the world lacked the perspective to see that Joe was innocent and NOW you have knowledge that the evidence was wrong (and there was no shenanigans from law enforcement). At the time was it wrong to have imprisoned Joe? No it wasn't. The only way you can say yes is with that future knowledge. In this case, throughout the millenia (or however long it was they were enslaved) there was no evidence of the Parshmen being a sentient or sapient species. To this I would say that the answer to both your proposed questions is No.

I would argue that yes, it was wrong to imprison Joe, because imprisoning an innocent man is wrong. There is a difference between a person committing a deliberate immoral action (a sin, as religion would term it) and between an act being, in and of itself, wrong. The act of killing someone is wrong whether or not the person responsible intended it; there's a reason we have "manslaughter" as a charge.

[kraefzke]

Mayby a little OT, but I think there might be even more to this: How do we now that the new Parshmen actually bonded Spren? My theory is: The Listeners of old did not want to be Voidbringers anymore, so in order to defy their gods they did someTHING to themselves (or asked to have this thing done to them). So the first Parshmen were created, whom the humans enslaved (buuuuh humans). How and when that enslavement came to be (directly after the THING, maybe even by means of the THING, or at some later point in Rosharan history) is not part of my theory. I don't think that they lost the ability to bond Spren, I just think that in this new state - Slaveform - they would have a hard time to go out into a storm to change, not to speak of being unable to remember to go out in the first place.

The rediscovery of bonding spren might have been more of an accident - Parshmen out in the Highstorm and chancing on a compatible spren, creating the Parshendi. This could have happened soon enough after the THING that not all knowledge was lost, so modern day Parshendi still remember defying their gods, but it was between Desolations, so no Voidspren around and the Parshendi did, understandably, not go back into slavery, but decided to just stay clear of humans for a few millenia.

I don't believe in Odium's altruism. The "healing" of the Parshmen did not right an old wrong (or well, maybe it did, but not in the way Kaladin and some here in this forum seem to think) but restored the Listeners to a form more susceptible to their gods.

[Salkara]

3 hours ago, kiapet said:

I would argue that yes, it was wrong to imprison Joe, because imprisoning an innocent man is wrong.

Sure, it was wrong, but you and everyone else believed Joe was guilty. Are you suggesting that humanity ignore consensus and refuse to punish those who apparently guilty?

Juries get things wrong. Does that mean we shouldn't have juries? What are you suggesting as a better system?

[hypatia]

All of this discussion leads me to same questions:

Was there the priciple of slavery before the enslavement of the Listeners?

Is there a nice excusion for the possibility to enslave other humans - especially Darkeyes?

If it would only be the Parshmen I wouldn't have so much problems, but all in all it looks like ordinary greed.

Slavery is over all a good way to become wealthy for some groups.

Really - I don't think Odium will need the Parshmen, there is so much more hatred in Roshar than before the Last Desolation - homemade by the humans themselves - that he doesn't need this poor group of beings to let everything explode.

[Blacksmithki]

56 minutes ago, Salkara said:

Sure, it was wrong, but you and everyone else believed Joe was guilty. Are you suggesting that humanity ignore consensus and refuse to punish those who apparently guilty?

Juries get things wrong. Does that mean we shouldn't have juries? What are you suggesting as a better system?

I think we can add to this by saying that, if you make the best possible decision available to you based on what information you have and have no reason to believe is false, are you wrong? Now if you learn twenty years later that you made a less then amazing decision because your information was wrong were you wrong to make that decision in the first place?

[Calderis]

13 hours ago, Dreamstorm said:

Yes! Created by Ruin and Preservation when they set up their compromise, right? I remember reading somewhere (AU?) that was one of two instances where humans/humanoids did not pre-date the planet's shards. (Or maybe it was the other way around. I'm definitely out of my league on Cosmere knowledge, so apologies if I keep f-ing stuff up. On that note, if anyone wants to answer my Q&A on shards and shattering, I'd greatly appreciate it )

The three races in the WoB he's speaking of are specifically Yolish. Human, Dragon, and Sho Del

Edited October 12, 2017 by Calderis

[bo.montier]

5 hours ago, kiapet said:

I would argue that yes, it was wrong to imprison Joe, because imprisoning an innocent man is wrong. There is a difference between a person committing a deliberate immoral action (a sin, as religion would term it) and between an act being, in and of itself, wrong. The act of killing someone is wrong whether or not the person responsible intended it; there's a reason we have "manslaughter" as a charge.

Ok, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. 

You are separating the action from the intention. Saying that an act can be viewed as right or wrong, without taking intent into the equation. And then the intent, on top of the action, determines moral culpability?

If I'm understanding you correctly then I think we just have different views of what makes up morality. For instance, I think it is morally right to attack and kill a person who is raping my wife (you may not agree that lethal force is moral in this instance, but bear with me).

 Now, Let's say I walk in, and I think she is being raped, and I kill the man she is with. Only later do I find out that she was actually having an affair.
My killing was justified and moral with the information I had at the time. (Most states in the US also allow for this type of killing as being legal. Mistaken self-defense is the legal definition)

Now, if I come in, realize she's having an affair, and kill the man, I have just become culpable morally, because I did it KNOWING she was not in danger, not being raped. 

It is the same action in both cases, I killed my wife's lover, but in one I am morally innocent, and in the other I am morally guilty. 

From what I understand, you're saying the action itself was wrong in both cases, but I am only morally culpable in the second?

[kiapet]

2 hours ago, bo.montier said:

Ok, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. 

You are separating the action from the intention. Saying that an act can be viewed as right or wrong, without taking intent into the equation. And then the intent, on top of the action, determines moral culpability?

If I'm understanding you correctly then I think we just have different views of what makes up morality. For instance, I think it is morally right to attack and kill a person who is raping my wife (you may not agree that lethal force is moral in this instance, but bear with me).

 Now, Let's say I walk in, and I think she is being raped, and I kill the man she is with. Only later do I find out that she was actually having an affair.
My killing was justified and moral with the information I had at the time. (Most states in the US also allow for this type of killing as being legal. Mistaken self-defense is the legal definition)

Now, if I come in, realize she's having an affair, and kill the man, I have just become culpable morally, because I did it KNOWING she was not in danger, not being raped. 

It is the same action in both cases, I killed my wife's lover, but in one I am morally innocent, and in the other I am morally guilty. 

From what I understand, you're saying the action itself was wrong in both cases, but I am only morally culpable in the second?

Yes, this is what I was saying. I think it's perfectly possible for someone to unknowingly contribute to some evil- heck, we do it all the time by buying things that come from questionable sources. That doesn't mean the person themselves is morally culpable for something they had no way of knowing, but it does give them the responsibility to remedy the situation once it's discovered.

[bo.montier]

Just now, kiapet said:

Yes, this is what I was saying. I think it's perfectly possible for someone to unknowingly contribute to some evil- heck, we do it all the time by buying things that come from questionable sources. That doesn't mean the person themselves is morally culpable for something they had no way of knowing, but it does give them the responsibility to remedy the situation once it's discovered.

Ok, we're on the same page now. I didn't realize you were separating those concepts. 

[Calderis]

Morality is complicated. Looking back on this issue with our societies priorities and moral guidelines, of course this is going to look bad.

Here's the thing though. Morality is highly subjective. What is acceptable, and what isn't varies widely on culture. Yes slavery is wrong now, and arguably always was. That doesn't change that a few hundred years ago it was accepted as the norm. 

And its still not the same situation as we saw in the books. 

People keep trying to say that the Parshmen were more like cattle, like animals, then like human slaves. While that description is close, it's still not enough. Parshmen were almost devoid of personality. We humanize animals because of their individuality, but the Parshmen were essentially interchangeable. The only time any of them we see are given a name is Shen. Tvlakv literally "named" his Parshmen 1 and 2, which was probably only for the purpose of differentiating tasks given, and not for recognition. 

The Parshmen were not treated like we treat animals. There wasn't a sense of care. The Parshmen were automatons. 

Herein lies the major problem. People do not grow attached to things they don't feel anything towards, and the Parshmen showed nearly no emotion. The most "emotion" we ever see is discomfort from one when Shallan actually attempts to question it. 

For society to feel they've done wrong toward the Parshmen, they have to be made to feel that these are people, and not the mindless, emotionless automatons they know. That will never happen if they never interact. 

What Kaladin is doing needs to happen with all of them. Between societal preconceptions, and the anger of these freed Parshmen, the chances of that being reached at a broad enough level to make a difference is... unlikely, to put it mildly. 

[Salkara]

19 minutes ago, kiapet said:

Yes, this is what I was saying. I think it's perfectly possible for someone to unknowingly contribute to some evil- heck, we do it all the time by buying things that come from questionable sources. That doesn't mean the person themselves is morally culpable for something they had no way of knowing, but it does give them the responsibility to remedy the situation once it's discovered.

I'm with you up until the part I emphasized. If a person unknowingly commits a crime, most legal systems will hold them innocent (assuming no negligence) and not require punishment or reparations. Moreover, when it comes to the parshmen, why should the responsibility for remedying the situation fall on the humans? It isn't their fault the listeners were stuck in slaveform, and aside from a very small few (e.g. Diagramists, Heralds, etc.), humanity didn't know that parshmen could be anything other than parshmen.

I'd amend your statement to say that when an aspect of society is found to be flawed, it is the responsibility of all involved parties to come to a new understanding. What happened to the listeners, while terrible, does not place the onus for fixing the problem solely upon the humans. Rather, it is the responsibility of both humans and listeners to find common ground and move forward.

One last thing that came to my mind. Let's say a comet hits earth and fills the air with some unknown element that gives human-level intelligence to all apes. Furthermore, it turns out the only reason the apes weren't human-smart before is because thousands of years ago, some guy (let's call him Brian) found a way to gather all of that unknown element and hid it somewhere. Brian died after a normal lifespan, and never told anyone what he did or how to undo it. We can probably agree that nobody likes Brian, but does anyone else bear responsibility for his actions? Are you responsible for testing conducted on lab monkeys? Should we now demonize zoos which had breeding programs for endangered ape species? How much of your livelihood are you willing to give up so that newly-intelligent apes with no marketable skills have a reasonable quality of life? How much responsibility do you, as a member of Brian's species, have for the situation Brian created?

[bo.montier]

3 minutes ago, Salkara said:

One last thing that came to my mind. Let's say a comet hits earth and fills the air with some unknown element that gives human-level intelligence to all apes. Furthermore, it turns out the only reason the apes weren't human-smart before is because thousands of years ago, some guy (let's call him Brian) found a way to gather all of that unknown element and hid it somewhere. Brian died after a normal lifespan, and never told anyone what he did or how to undo it. We can probably agree that nobody likes Brian, but does anyone else bear responsibility for his actions? Are you responsible for testing conducted on lab monkeys? Should we now demonize zoos which had breeding programs for endangered ape species? How much of your livelihood are you willing to give up so that newly-intelligent apes with no marketable skills have a reasonable quality of life? How much responsibility do you, as a member of Brian's species, have for the situation Brian created?

Ok, This is getting into really complicated real-life territory. I'm a WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) American. Neither I, nor anyone in my ancestry, as far as we can trace it, owned slaves. In fact, my family did not get to America until the 1900s, decades after slavery was eliminated.

Now, There are no longer slaves in America, but there is still a LOT of disparity between blacks and whites in terms of health outcomes, income, standard of living, etc. 
I believe that I have benefitted from the status quo, through no fault of my own. It's not my fault I was born into this country to my parents at this time. It is not my fault that all of these sub-conscious societal things work in my favor. 
MY MORALITY (to be clear, mine, I make no claims on anyone else with this) demands that I work for social justice and equality. That looks a certain way for me, though I accept that it can look different for others with the same basic beliefs as me. It's not my fault it happened, but I believe I have a responsibility to help fix it. I believe this for 2 reasons, I benefit from the situation that was created by other people.

In my mind, looking at the suddenly healed parshmen, I believe the humans have some decisions. The MINIMUM moral option is to leave them alone and let them be. The Best option would be to try to help them, as Kaladin is doing, and apologize for what the humans unknowingly did. The Worst option is to try to re-enslave them. The humans have benefitted from what "Brian" did, at the expense of the parshmen. The least they can do is stop doing the bad thing they didn't know they were doing.

[Salkara]

7 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

Ok, This is getting into really complicated real-life territory. I'm a WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) American. Neither I, nor anyone in my ancestry, as far as we can trace it, owned slaves. In fact, my family did not get to America until the 1900s, decades after slavery was eliminated.

Now, There are no longer slaves in America, but there is still a LOT of disparity between blacks and whites in terms of health outcomes, income, standard of living, etc. 
I believe that I have benefitted from the status quo, through no fault of my own. It's not my fault I was born into this country to my parents at this time. It is not my fault that all of these sub-conscious societal things work in my favor. 
MY MORALITY (to be clear, mine, I make no claims on anyone else with this) demands that I work for social justice and equality. That looks a certain way for me, though I accept that it can look different for others with the same basic beliefs as me. It's not my fault it happened, but I believe I have a responsibility to help fix it. I believe this for 2 reasons, I benefit from the situation that was created by other people.

In my mind, looking at the suddenly healed parshmen, I believe the humans have some decisions. The MINIMUM moral option is to leave them alone and let them be. The Best option would be to try to help them, as Kaladin is doing, and apologize for what the humans unknowingly did. The Worst option is to try to re-enslave them. The humans have benefitted from what "Brian" did, at the expense of the parshmen. The least they can do is stop doing the bad thing they didn't know they were doing.

Do you feel this responsibility only because you're white, or is it an outgrowth of the social justice and equality your morality demands that you seek? If you were Asian, do you believe you would (or should) feel less responsibility to help fix the problem, or do you believe all humans are responsible for social justice and equality, regardless of race?

I agree with you on what the right and wrong decisions that humanity can make. Let's make it murkier though. Let's say humans elect to go with your best option, but the healed parshmen reject the overtures and instead want reparations from humanity (could be money, or even 4,500 years of humans-enslaved-to-listeners as an eye-for-eye type of thing). Let's say a sizable fraction of the healed parshmen are willing to go to war if their demands aren't met. What becomes the right course of action then?

[bo.montier]

1 hour ago, Salkara said:

Do you feel this responsibility only because you're white, or is it an outgrowth of the social justice and equality your morality demands that you seek? If you were Asian, do you believe you would (or should) feel less responsibility to help fix the problem, or do you believe all humans are responsible for social justice and equality, regardless of race?

I agree with you on what the right and wrong decisions that humanity can make. Let's make it murkier though. Let's say humans elect to go with your best option, but the healed parshmen reject the overtures and instead want reparations from humanity (could be money, or even 4,500 years of humans-enslaved-to-listeners as an eye-for-eye type of thing). Let's say a sizable fraction of the healed parshmen are willing to go to war if their demands aren't met. What becomes the right course of action then?

Whew, getting deep. 
I feel this responsibility for 2 reasons:
1) I believe there is a moral obligation to work to push back against what is dark in the world, and there is darkness in the disparities I see. I believe this is a responsibility shared by ALL people in ALL civilizations and circumstances. Some just have more they are able to contribute. (2 things here. I acknowledge that America has made great strides in these areas and is much better than both most countries through the whole of history and most modern countries. I am also NOT saying that America is Mostly or wholly dark in these areas...) 
2) I have benefitted from the circumstance I find myself in, and I want to "make up for" that. I want to give to others as much of the "privilege" I have been given. 
I believe the first reason is FAR, FAR more important than the second. 

Ok, on to the next. Humans go with the best option, Parshmen want reparations. Man, that is murky. I think it makes sense, from a moral perspective, to pay certain reparations, and then be willing to trade with the Parshmen. I don't think it would be appropriate for the humans to be forced out of all their homes, or give up everything they have. But, even then, giving the parshmen money when they don't know how to farm...The parshmen have to be willing to trade, and thus interact. The Humans can try, but if it's not received then there isn't anything they can do. If a true effort is given to make things right, and to help the Parshmen, but the Parshmen want unreasonable demands, or just refuse to work with their former captors, and push war, then the moral option for the humans is to defend themselves. 
Like, if Sah attacks Kaladin simply because he is human, Kaladin has the right to defend himself, using whatever force is necessary to stop the threat. If humans try to re-enslave the Parshmen, the Parshmen have the moral right to defend themselves from said slavery using whatever force is necessary to stop the threat. 
I DON'T think it would be moral for the Parshmen to ATTACK humans if basic humanitarian aid is given (i.e. they aren't starving because they're being provided with food).

Wow, this whole thread got deep.

[king of nowhere]

6 hours ago, hypatia said:

All of this discussion leads me to same questions:

Was there the priciple of slavery before the enslavement of the Listeners?

Is there a nice excusion for the possibility to enslave other humans - especially Darkeyes?

If it would only be the Parshmen I wouldn't have so much problems, but all in all it looks like ordinary greed.

Slavery is over all a good way to become wealthy for some groups.

Really - I don't think Odium will need the Parshmen, there is so much more hatred in Roshar than before the Last Desolation - homemade by the humans themselves - that he doesn't need this poor group of beings to let everything explode.

If we look at our own world, then I'd say there was slavery from well before. Slavery was practiced in practically any ancient society. Before modern morality set in, when the times were harsh and the only rule was that of survival, then enslaving a defeated enemy made a lot of sense. If you had the power to do it, attacking your neighboring tribe, take their land and kill them made a lot of sense, in that it raised your chance of survival. And if instead of killing everyone you made the survivors into slaves, it raised your chances even more. So, societies with slaves had more power than those without, and could use that to get more slaves.

Furthermore, the human brain is made to think in tribes. My tribe, the enemy. In evolutionary terms, your tribe carries your genes, as there is a lot of interbreeding, while other tribes are your competitors. The idea that we should care for other tribes just as much as we do for our own is a modern construct that required a lot of effort to reach.

 

5 hours ago, bo.montier said:

 For instance, I think it is morally right to attack and kill a person who is raping my wife (you may not agree that lethal force is moral in this instance, but bear with me).

 Now, Let's say I walk in, and I think she is being raped, and I kill the man she is with. Only later do I find out that she was actually having an affair.
My killing was justified and moral with the information I had at the time. (Most states in the US also allow for this type of killing as being legal. Mistaken self-defense is the legal definition)

Now, if I come in, realize she's having an affair, and kill the man, I have just become culpable morally, because I did it KNOWING she was not in danger, not being raped. 

It is the same action in both cases, I killed my wife's lover, but in one I am morally innocent, and in the other I am morally guilty. 

From what I understand, you're saying the action itself was wrong in both cases, but I am only morally culpable in the second?

Actions are right or wrong based on objective principles (objective, but still in part arbitrarily set by a society). Moral culpability depends on what the perpetrator knew at the time and his capability of determining the right action. Generally the law divides three instances: in the first one did something wrong but he had no way of knowing it. He is generally considered innocent in that case. In the second, one did not wanted to cause the wrong thing, but he did something else wrong that caused the bad thing to happen. It is the most common case when someone causes an accident through negligence (and I would argue that you shooting your wife's lover would fall in that category, because you should have asked what was going on before shooting). This case also would apply to humans on roshar if they never tried to figure out whether the parshmen were sentient. But we know they experimented and they never got any conclusive evidence that there was a human-like mind inside them. And the third case is when one intentioanlly does something wrong, which is probably the case of whoever created the parshmen in the first place; though there are extenuating circumstances, and if it was done in war as a way to stop an enemy, it also becomes morally justified.

1 hour ago, Salkara said:

One last thing that came to my mind. Let's say a comet hits earth and fills the air with some unknown element that gives human-level intelligence to all apes. Furthermore, it turns out the only reason the apes weren't human-smart before is because thousands of years ago, some guy (let's call him Brian) found a way to gather all of that unknown element and hid it somewhere. Brian died after a normal lifespan, and never told anyone what he did or how to undo it. We can probably agree that nobody likes Brian, but does anyone else bear responsibility for his actions? Are you responsible for testing conducted on lab monkeys? Should we now demonize zoos which had breeding programs for endangered ape species? How much of your livelihood are you willing to give up so that newly-intelligent apes with no marketable skills have a reasonable quality of life? How much responsibility do you, as a member of Brian's species, have for the situation Brian created?

That's also a good point. Holding a race responsible for something that one of their members did in the past and was widely unknown by then, and completely unknown by now, is racist, big time. It would be like if I wanted to kill africans because one thousand years ago some of them took to piracy, raided european costal settlements and took slaves. It is important to note that while the awakened parshmen have a point in being angry, if they want to punish the humans they become wrong.

1 hour ago, Salkara said:

I agree with you on what the right and wrong decisions that humanity can make. Let's make it murkier though. Let's say humans elect to go with your best option, but the healed parshmen reject the overtures and instead want reparations from humanity (could be money, or even 4,500 years of humans-enslaved-to-listeners as an eye-for-eye type of thing). Let's say a sizable fraction of the healed parshmen are willing to go to war if their demands aren't met. What becomes the right course of action then?

I'd say if the humans wanted a fresh start but the awakened parshmen wanted to enslave humans in retribution, the humans would be fully justified in waging war to them. If the parshmen merely asked for monetary compensation, it's debatable. Certainly they are left stranded without resources but what they could carry on their back, they can ask at least for some equipment. On the other hand, human society just suffered major damage for the everstorm, and it lost what was a reliable and cheap workforce (think if our industrial robots stopped working) and it is unreasonable to assume that they'd also be able to pay huge money on top of everything else. 

Personally, I'd say that the parshmen should receive farmland in reparation. farmland was used to feed both humans and parshmen, and now the humans don't need to feed parshmen anymore, so they can spare some of it. parshmen need the capacity to make a livelihood, and having good land gives them just the chance. Some mines and other resources too. basically, split a corner of the nation where they can live, give it to them, and call it reparation. It's the best I can think of.

[bo.montier]

12 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

Actions are right or wrong based on objective principles (objective, but still in part arbitrarily set by a society). Moral culpability depends on what the perpetrator knew at the time and his capability of determining the right action. Generally the law divides three instances: in the first one did something wrong but he had no way of knowing it. He is generally considered innocent in that case. In the second, one did not wanted to cause the wrong thing, but he did something else wrong that caused the bad thing to happen. It is the most common case when someone causes an accident through negligence (and I would argue that you shooting your wife's lover would fall in that category, because you should have asked what was going on before shooting). This case also would apply to humans on roshar if they never tried to figure out whether the parshmen were sentient. But we know they experimented and they never got any conclusive evidence that there was a human-like mind inside them. And the third case is when one intentioanlly does something wrong, which is probably the case of whoever created the parshmen in the first place; though there are extenuating circumstances, and if it was done in war as a way to stop an enemy, it also becomes morally justified.

Um... I understand this, but I am not sure I agree... I guess, ultimately, I don't care about the objective right or wrong, I care FAR more about moral culpability. We can all agree Slavery is wrong, and that the way parshmen were treated is wrong, but what we don't all agree on (evidently from earlier in this thread) is "were the humans aware they were keeping slaves when they kept the parshmen, and are they guilty of being slavers in regards to the parshmen?" And I think the answer to both is NO.

I also believe it is a far more important than the question of "was it wrong to keep the parshmen as slaves?"

Edit: Every single time I see your signature I laugh.

Edited October 12, 2017 by bo.montier

[hypatia]

@king of nowhere

I know the mechanisms of slavery in our history and there were even more motivation for slavery in ancient societies.

This was a more In- Roshar -question - is there any indication in - let's say - Alethela?

Something in the visions or in Jasnah's studies?

[kiapet]

1 hour ago, bo.montier said:

Um... I understand this, but I am not sure I agree... I guess, ultimately, I don't care about the objective right or wrong, I care FAR more about moral culpability. We can all agree Slavery is wrong, and that the way parshmen were treated is wrong, but what we don't all agree on (evidently from earlier in this thread) is "were the humans aware they were keeping slaves when they kept the parshmen, and are they guilty of being slavers in regards to the parshmen?" And I think the answer to both is NO.

I also believe it is a far more important than the question of "was it wrong to keep the parshmen as slaves?"

Edit: Every single time I see your signature I laugh.

I would say moral culpability, as we've defined it, doesn't actually have that much influence on the overall situation. In a situation where you discover your culture has perpetuated a great evil, the last thing you should be doing is sitting down and saying, "Well, technically we can't be blamed for this." You see something as deeply wrong as the Parshmen enslavement and you fix it, period. Now the Alethi obviously have different cultural values than me, but that we're supposed to read them saying, "Parshmen are slaves and that's it" and disagree with them, because we know better.

[Mulk]

3 hours ago, Salkara said:

I'm with you up until the part I emphasized. If a person unknowingly commits a crime, most legal systems will hold them innocent (assuming no negligence) and not require punishment or reparations.

This is incorrect.  Nearly every legal system I'm aware of holds that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. There may be lenience in the sentencing based on ignorance, but being ignorant of (for example) a texting and driving rule in a city or state does not absolve you from the need to obey that law.  The position of law enforcement and of the courts is that it is your job to know the laws for where you are going.  It is not theirs to make sure every last person who ever might be there knows the full details of all laws applicable to a person.  Responsible adults learn the ground rules for the spaces they operate in.  If you do not know the law, that more properly reflects on you and your responsibility as a person than it does on the law enforcement community. And here's the kicker - even if you're right (which I do not believe to be the case) that only protects you once.  And we're talking about something in which millions of people are at fault day by day if there is a responsibility to be upheld.

Quote

One last thing that came to my mind. Let's say a comet hits earth and fills the air with some unknown element that gives human-level intelligence to all apes. Furthermore, it turns out the only reason the apes weren't human-smart before is because thousands of years ago, some guy (let's call him Brian) found a way to gather all of that unknown element and hid it somewhere. Brian died after a normal lifespan, and never told anyone what he did or how to undo it. We can probably agree that nobody likes Brian, but does anyone else bear responsibility for his actions? Are you responsible for testing conducted on lab monkeys? Should we now demonize zoos which had breeding programs for endangered ape species? How much of your livelihood are you willing to give up so that newly-intelligent apes with no marketable skills have a reasonable quality of life? How much responsibility do you, as a member of Brian's species, have for the situation Brian created?

As to your latter question I'd say it depends on how much power Brian's species has to rectify the situation.  Can Brian's descendants fix the issue caused by Brian? Do they have the power and authority to rectify the circumstance, free the apes and stop testing on them and so forth? Then they have the responsibility to act.  In your example, it appears the apes have no power to fix it or to oppose what is done to them.  So, if Brian's species has no responsibility to fix it, it's okay for it to continue as it is, treating apes as less thans who can be exploited for Brian's species advancement.

This, btw, is the same logic behind the stop and render aid laws across America.  If you witness an accident, you have the legal responsibility to stop and render aid, and to report to the police what happened if they need assistance ascertaining the facts for determination of fault where that is necessary.  It's can be a felony not to.  You see a problem, you are supposed to by law and by human decency stop and make sure it's okay, determine if help is needed and call for or provide it to the extent you are able.

As to the parshmen themselves - that's a fundamentally simple question but one with a difficult resolution.  No one alive (aside from the Stormfather, perhaps the Heralds assuming they were involved, and I guess possibly Taravangian and the Diagramists) seems to know what happened to the parshmen and why they are as they are prior to the Everstorm arising. Now that they ARE different, acting as individuals with personalities and feelings, it is on humans as a whole to see what they have done to the parshmen and try to make it right.  To do otherwise risks war, as the parshmen are going to have to either be given what they need to become a functioning people again or will have to take it by force.  Like...they have no possessions and no land - they own nothing they need to provide for life as a whole and that is entirely the fault of humans.  That's pretty inarguable at this point.

So...is it more morally correct to have humans to accept responsibility as a race and try to make it right or to have war between the two to figure out who is right?  If it is the second, well, off you go with Desolation style fighting.  If it is the first...well, a lot of people are going to have to give up land and possessions to make it right.  It's not their fault it came out this way, but they are the only ones who can make it right without having to resort to war to fix it.  And I think you are seeing this with some of the parshmen reaching out and making demands - some countries are listening as a way to avoid war.

[bo.montier]

10 minutes ago, Mulk said:

This is incorrect.  Nearly every legal system I'm aware of holds that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. There may be lenience in the sentencing based on ignorance, but being ignorant of (for example) a texting and driving rule in a city or state does not absolve you from the need to obey that law.  The position of law enforcement and of the courts is that it is your job to know the laws for where you are going.  It is not theirs to make sure every last person who ever might be there knows the full details of all laws applicable to a person.  Responsible adults learn the ground rules for the spaces they operate in.  If you do not know the law, that more properly reflects on you and your responsibility as a person than it does on the law enforcement community. And here's the kicker - even if you're right (which I do not believe to be the case) that only protects you once.  And we're talking about something in which millions of people are at fault day by day if there is a responsibility to be upheld.

So...is it more morally correct to have humans to accept responsibility as a race and try to make it right or to have war between the two to figure out who is right?  If it is the second, well, off you go with Desolation style fighting.  If it is the first...well, a lot of people are going to have to give up land and possessions to make it right.  It's not their fault it came out this way, but they are the only ones who can make it right without having to resort to war to fix it.  And I think you are seeing this with some of the parshmen reaching out and making demands - some countries are listening as a way to avoid war.

To the first part: It's not simple ignorance we're talking about though, it's something more, but your point is well taken.
To the last part, I genuinely wonder if the parshmen actually ARE trying to negotiate, or if that was a lie told to Dalinar to delay. That is going to be important moving forward.

The greatest tragedy might be that peace is possible, but Odium takes over the parshmen to an extent that he destroys that peace, despite good-will on both sides.

[Mulk]

2 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

To the first part: It's not simple ignorance we're talking about though, it's something more, but your point is well taken.
To the last part, I genuinely wonder if the parshmen actually ARE trying to negotiate, or if that was a lie told to Dalinar to delay. That is going to be important moving forward.

The greatest tragedy might be that peace is possible, but Odium takes over the parshmen to an extent that he destroys that peace, despite good-will on both sides.

While I assume that they are negotiating in good faith that's just an assumption that may turn out to be wrong.  There is nothing simple about the whole thing, but for the purposes of arguments over text like this you do try to boil it down...

Basically, I agree on all points.