Moash

[Djerf]

Moash tends to be polarizing and then the discussion tends to go toward politics, morals and religion which is even more so. 

I think Moash actions is perfectly understandable and just as well founded and Kaladins or perhaps even more so and therefore I can actually see an redemption arc for him but it is not one that starts with a 'woe is me for I have suffered' and ends with an ' all is forgiven'.

To me killing is killing as long as the intent to kill or seriously harm is there, with the one exception of self defense when you can't take control without excessive force. And in my mind Kaladin killing the parsh is just as evil as anything else in the series he even asks syl why there would be a difference and she can't give him an answer, in fact it is an important part of his character at the moment. 

Seeing this, redemption for me is not Moash suffering to atone his crimes, as that would just be more suffering, but rather Moash starting to make the right decisions and to strive to become a better person. In a way it is thematically appropriate that redemption is the path of the Radiants. 

[Master Silver]

Moash, has been repeatedly betrayed by humans in authority. When Kaladin and him parted ways Kaladin was still growing (and he continues) as a person and leader. The revelation about the humans being the original void bringers in some ways validates everything Moash had done. And given different circumstances I could see Kaladin fighting alongside Moash and that group of singers. If they were let's say attacked by human bandits. Moash repeatedly says things about protecting his own, which now include bridge 4 and a group of singers. If push comes to shove Moash will turn on the Void Bringers to protect his own. He likely considers getting the honor blade as repayment for the singers robbing him of the blade and plate Kaladin had given him. I think Moash might become a Skybreaker.  Nale is certain to recognize the blade as belonging to Jezrian. THAT will be an interesting meeting.

[NameIess]

4 minutes ago, Master Silver said:

I think Moash might become a Skybreaker

A Skybreaker? Moash? He doesn't care about the law at all.

[Master Silver]

He cares about his law lol. What made me think of it was Syl's words to Kaladin when he got involved in the plot to kill the king. She reminds him he is no skybreaker. 

[NameIess]

2 minutes ago, Master Silver said:

He cares about his law lol. What made me think of it was Syl's words to Kaladin when he got involved in the plot to kill the king. She reminds him he is no skybreaker. 

Skybreakers are all about serving something besides yourself, as your own perceptions are flawed.

[Master Silver]

True, and I suppose that makes him the perfect candidate for an honor blade. Your point about them serving something external in some ways makes the fifth idea somewhat problematic to my mind. But that is off topic. 

[trav]

On 7.5.2020 at 5:25 PM, Frustration said:

Are you honestly saying murder isn't evil? Please explain.

 

You mean instead of getting off his butt and actually doing something on his own, he does whatever the fused tell him. Also why is Moash not evil but humanity is?

is murder evil? depends on who you murder I guess.

kill the person/thing that threatens to destroy the entire world and all its inhabitants. you are a hero.

kill an innocent child. you are a monster. its not black and white.

 

what I meant was that the oaths all rely on perception. that is exactly what Kaladin figured out. its not a matter of true and false at all. it a matter of what the one making the oath views as true and false. this can change through experience. which it did with Kaladin.

 

Moash is exactly as evil as humanity. Moash does what he feels is right.

he has the same information as Kaladin, but simply came to a different conclusion.

instead of fighting for the invaders he fights for the faction that originally inhabited Roshar.

 

[jamesbondsmith]

On 5/10/2020 at 4:32 AM, Master Silver said:

True, and I suppose that makes him the perfect candidate for an honor blade. Your point about them serving something external in some ways makes the fifth idea somewhat problematic to my mind. But that is off topic. 

To paraphrase Syl, the last person you'd want to gain Radiant powers and a Shardblade is someone who has no checks and balances on that power. About the only restriction on Szeth was that he would kill only whoever he was told to and that he wouldn't give his Blade up, and look how that went.

[SapphireHold]

On 5/7/2020 at 3:15 PM, agrabes said:

But neither Moash nor Adolin were authorized by law to carry out punishment.  This was not justice, so it doesn't matter if Elhokar or Sadeas were guilty of a crime.  In a court of law, you can't get your crime reduced from murder to manslaughter by proving that your victim was guilty of an unrelated crime.  If anything, Adolin's killing of Sadeas was more murder than Moash's killing of Elhokar.  Moash acted more honorably than Adolin, despite not even being on the side of Honor.

Adolin killed Sadeas in cold blood and without giving him a chance to defend himself or even letting Sadeas know he was going to try anything violent.  He also did it on his own - he was not ordered to do it and in fact Dalinar did not approve of his actions.  That's murder in my opinion, even if Sadeas was deserving of death it is still murder to kill him in cold blood and outside the legal system.

In Moash's case there were significant differences.  First, when he killed Elhokar he faced him head on and did it openly.  Elhokar at least had a chance to fight or run away and he had Kaladin around to defend him.  They were also on opposite sides in a war.  This makes his killing of Elhokar more like a battle than a murder.  Also, he was ordered to kill both Elhokar and Jezrien making it less his own personal decision.  What Moash did was a lot more like manslaughter or maybe some type of war crime.  

Elhokar was holding his child in his arms, and when the tiny body of Gavinor impeded the fulfillment of Moash's dream of vengeance, he was pushed out of the way by a boot. Say what you want about Elhokar's incompetence when it came to Moash's grandparents and their ultimate fate, but Moash wasn't subjected to the cruelty that they suffered firsthand. That Moash did not at least pause in his murder when confronted with a man holding his only child, and pushed him aside to hasten Elhokar's death, speaks to the type of person he is. 

[Frustration]

7 hours ago, trav said:

is murder evil? depends on who you murder I guess.

kill the person/thing that threatens to destroy the entire world and all its inhabitants. you are a hero.

kill an innocent child. you are a monster. its not black and white.

See, here is the thing, only one of thos is murder. If someone has the means and threatened to destroy the world and you killed them, you have not shed inocent blood. And yes it is black and white, name a person who isn't either good or evil, and I will name you a person that doesn't exist.

 

7 hours ago, trav said:

what I meant was that the oaths all rely on perception. that is exactly what Kaladin figured out. its not a matter of true and false at all. it a matter of what the one making the oath views as true and false. this can change through experience. which it did with Kaladin.

 And this has to do with the discussion why?

 

8 hours ago, trav said:

Moash is exactly as evil as humanity. Moash does what he feels is right.

Hitler did what he felt was right, was he "exactly as evil as humanity" the problem with morality is subjective arguments is that they fall apart. If only perception matters why is your veiw better than Hitler's? Why can't people steal if they think it's right? Society would cease to exsist if this where taken to it's logical conclusion.

 

8 hours ago, trav said:

he has the same information as Kaladin, but simply came to a different conclusion.

instead of fighting for the invaders he fights for the faction that originally inhabited Roshar.

And? So what? That doesn't make him good or even gain sympathy from me every war that has been fought from the dawn of time has in one way or another been about land why should this be different?

[Master Silver]

@SapphireHold

A very good first post! Welcome to the 17th Shard!

 

I hope that their is a reckoning between The Lopin and Moash and Lopin puts him down in a comically one sided fight :-p

[Nymeros]

59 minutes ago, SapphireHold said:

Moash wasn't subjected to the cruelty that they suffered firsthand. That Moash did not at least pause in his murder when confronted with a man holding his only child, and pushed him aside to hasten Elhokar's death, speaks to the type of person he is. 

Yes, he's the type of person who knows that the world is cruel and hard. Moash didnt experience the cells with his grandparents, but dont forget that he was a slave.

[agrabes]

1 hour ago, SapphireHold said:

Elhokar was holding his child in his arms, and when the tiny body of Gavinor impeded the fulfillment of Moash's dream of vengeance, he was pushed out of the way by a boot. Say what you want about Elhokar's incompetence when it came to Moash's grandparents and their ultimate fate, but Moash wasn't subjected to the cruelty that they suffered firsthand. That Moash did not at least pause in his murder when confronted with a man holding his only child, and pushed him aside to hasten Elhokar's death, speaks to the type of person he is. 

And yet - if Moash were the ultimate pure evil you seem to be suggesting here why would he spare the life of Elhokar's son?  It would have been easier to just run them both through, but he intentionally spared the child.  Moash is a grey character - he's done bad things, but for understandable and even sometimes noble reasons.

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

See, here is the thing, only one of thos is murder. If someone has the means and threatened to destroy the world and you killed them, you have not shed inocent blood. And yes it is black and white, name a person who isn't either good or evil, and I will name you a person that doesn't exist.

Murder has a specific meaning, not tied to moral context.  You can equally murder an innocent child and an evil dictator.

I personally would not define myself as "good" or "evil."  I wouldn't call myself evil - I've got a clean criminal record, generally try to be a nice person, etc.  It'd be a pretty big stretch to call myself evil.  But if my only other option is "good" - that doesn't seem right either.  It feels like presenting this choice where you are either Ghandi or Hitler.  I don't think I'm morally close to either of those two.  I've done things that are both good and bad in my life, like pretty much everyone else.  I personally think that to call a person "good" or "evil" is not the right way to look at things in most cases.  The individual actions are good or evil but the person as a whole contains both good and evil.  Only a few people could be truly called good, and only a few could be truly called evil.

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

Hitler did what he felt was right, was he "exactly as evil as humanity" the problem with morality is subjective arguments is that they fall apart. If only perception matters why is your veiw better than Hitler's? Why can't people steal if they think it's right? Society would cease to exsist if this where taken to it's logical conclusion.

The answer to this question is fairly simple - perception is reality.  Most people from most value systems believe Hitler was evil, therefore he is.  The same is true for stealing - most people believe stealing is wrong, therefore it is.  If most people believed stealing wasn't wrong (and there are historical real world societies where this was true), then it wouldn't be wrong.

The issue with an absolute moral system is that it requires a set of absolute moral values.  For example - doing A, B, C is always good while doing X, Y, Z is always evil.  No one has ever been able to develop an absolute moral system that can be objectively proven to be correct.  You and I would say that cannibalism is morally wrong, but a hundred years ago certain Polynesian tribes would have argued that it was not only necessary but actively morally good.  That eating parts of an enemy's body was honoring and respecting them and that it's morally wrong to refuse to eat these body parts.  Which is right?  That's not even getting into differing religious views and the associated conflicting moral systems, or other deeply rooted moral values held by different societies and cultures.

I think that morality is something that is personal to everyone.  We can all agree on certain things like murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc but certain things will be decided by each person's own moral code whether that is self developed or based in religion.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

Murder has a specific meaning, not tied to moral context.  You can equally murder an innocent child and an evil dictator.

I don't know about you but I define murder as the shedding of inocent blood.

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

I personally would not define myself as "good" or "evil."  I wouldn't call myself evil - I've got a clean criminal record, generally try to be a nice person, etc.  It'd be a pretty big stretch to call myself evil.  But if my only other option is "good" - that doesn't seem right either.  It feels like presenting this choice where you are either Ghandi or Hitler.  I don't think I'm morally close to either of those two.  I've done things that are both good and bad in my life, like pretty much everyone else.  I personally think that to call a person "good" or "evil" is not the right way to look at things in most cases.  The individual actions are good or evil but the person as a whole contains both good and evil.  Only a few people could be truly called good, and only a few could be truly called evil.

To say you have to have made 100% good or bad choices to be considered either or, is not what I meant, have you tried to the best of your knowledge and understanding tried to help people and do what is right? If yes you are a good person, even if you make mistakes. 

 

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

The answer to this question is fairly simple - perception is reality.  Most people from most value systems believe Hitler was evil, therefore he is.  The same is true for stealing - most people believe stealing is wrong, therefore it is.  If most people believed stealing wasn't wrong (and there are historical real world societies where this was true), then it wouldn't be wrong.

So slavery was totally justified and there was no moral wrongdoing by slavers, good to know.

 

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

The issue with an absolute moral system is that it requires a set of absolute moral values.  For example - doing A, B, C is always good while doing X, Y, Z is always evil.  No one has ever been able to develop an absolute moral system that can be objectively proven to be correct.  You and I would say that cannibalism is morally wrong, but a hundred years ago certain Polynesian tribes would have argued that it was not only necessary but actively morally good.  That eating parts of an enemy's body was honoring and respecting them and that it's morally wrong to refuse to eat these body parts.  Which is right?  That's not even getting into differing religious views and the associated conflicting moral systems, or other deeply rooted moral values held by different societies and cultures.

Now we get into knowledge, if a child was raised thinking that you should kill everyone on sight, 'brainwashed' basically, the act would be wrong but the child not knowing better would still be inocent. I think that there is a definitive moral code, humans just don't have it yet. But we can feel it, you know deep down when something is wrong, ignoring that voice, that tells you when your doing something your not supposed to is what constitutes evil.

[Chiberty]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

I don't know about you but I define murder as the shedding of inocent blood.

The legal definition will differ depending on where you live--and of course, Alethkar's comparable term could differ-- but here is the one from dictionary.law.com:

Quote

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Although this might not be the way you use the word, if people are using different definitions in this discussion, it will degrade into an argument over semantics.

One thing to note is that while Moash and Adolin both committed murder, Moash committed first degree murder, while Adolin committed second degree murder.

Edited May 19, 2020 by ChickenLiberty

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

Now we get into knowledge, if a child was raised thinking that you should kill everyone on sight, 'brainwashed' basically, the act would be wrong but the child not knowing better would still be inocent. I think that there is a definitive moral code, humans just don't have it yet. But we can feel it, you know deep down when something is wrong, ignoring that voice, that tells you when your doing something your not supposed to is what constitutes evil.

From a philosophical standpoint, the question becomes how do you know what that voice is telling you is good and moral? The "Son of Sam" heard a voice telling him what was the right thing to do and he truly believed it was. From other individual's perspectives, what that inner voice was telling him, was most certainly not good nor moral. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

2 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

From a philosophical standpoint, the question becomes how do you know what that voice is telling you is good and moral? The "Son of Sam" heard a voice telling him what was the right thing to do and he truly believed it was. From other individual's perspectives, what that inner voice was telling him, was most certainly not good nor moral. 

From a philosophical standpoint, question everything as to why you know good from evil, now we're entering religious waters and I think it would be best if we don't debate that. 

[Pathfinder]

14 minutes ago, Frustration said:

From a philosophical standpoint, question everything as to why you know good from evil, now we're entering religious waters and I think it would be best if we don't debate that. 

I thought that's what you two were getting at in regards to discussing "absolute morality". For instance the slavery topic. He or she was not saying that there was nothing wrong with slavery. Just at that time, at that place, in that culture, it was seen and perceived as acceptable. So it was treated as such. We now looking back, with our own time, place, and culture, we see and perceive it as unacceptable. So it is treated as such.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Pathfinder

[agrabes]

7 hours ago, Frustration said:

I don't know about you but I define murder as the shedding of inocent blood.

To say you have to have made 100% good or bad choices to be considered either or, is not what I meant, have you tried to the best of your knowledge and understanding tried to help people and do what is right? If yes you are a good person, even if you make mistakes. 

 

So slavery was totally justified and there was no moral wrongdoing by slavers, good to know.

 

Now we get into knowledge, if a child was raised thinking that you should kill everyone on sight, 'brainwashed' basically, the act would be wrong but the child not knowing better would still be inocent. I think that there is a definitive moral code, humans just don't have it yet. But we can feel it, you know deep down when something is wrong, ignoring that voice, that tells you when your doing something your not supposed to is what constitutes evil.

I don't define murder as the shedding of innocent blood.  I go by the legal definition, since murder is a legal term at least in my view.  Basically, killing someone by choice when you do not have the legal right to do so for reasons like self defense, as an executioner, or as a legal combatant during war.

I understand what you're saying regarding a person being good or bad.  But I'm also pointing out that what is good and what is bad is difficult to determine at a certain point.  Certain things and certain people we can say are good or evil with a pretty high level of confidence.  But others are not so clear.  For example, I have a family member on my wife's side who was known by his community and church as a great man.  He was always kind to even the lowest people in society and donated his time and money to help those in need, so much so that he lived a life of near poverty himself.  I went to his funeral a few years ago and was shocked that my wife's family had mixed feelings about him and some even refused to attend his funeral.  That's when I learned that he also treated his wife badly.  He wasn't physically abusive, but he was mean and borderline emotionally abusive.  He gave away their money without talking to his wife such that they could barely make ends meet and invited dangerous people who were known criminals into their home who took advantage of them.  Was he good or evil?  I say neither.  He did too much good to be called evil, but he did too much evil to be called good.  I feel like if you call a person a "good person" at least in this context of absolute morality, then they have to be fully good.

I'm not saying slavery was justified or right.  What I am saying is that there were people who did sincerely believe that it was justified and right.  There are a lot of things that were considered good and right historically that are considered gruesome crimes today.  Morality changes over time.  For thousands of years of human existence, slavery was considered to be justified.  Only in the last few years have we decided it is wrong.  Even though it seems absolutely wrong today, can we be sure than in another few hundred years slavery will become acceptable again?  Aside from slavery, what about war?  As recently as the early 1900's most people around the world believed that war did more good than harm overall.  It was a common belief that war brought out all the best human qualities and that only by facing mortal danger could you truly become a full adult.  Yet today, we view war as a necessary evil that is more often than not a waste of the lives of some of our best and brightest young people.  Anyone today who wanted to go to war to conquer some territory and give our young soldiers a chance at fame and glory would be condemned.

I get your point about there possibly being an absolute moral code that exists that may be beyond current human understanding.  It's possible, but humans have been studying this for hundreds and even thousands of years and haven't come up with it yet.  That doesn't mean it's not out there, but it makes me doubt it.  I think Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is the theory that comes closest, but even Kant himself did not feel he'd got it right.  Unfortunately, doing objective good is not as simple as doing what a person feels is right.  That is entirely subjective, based on societal and cultural expectations along with a person's own DNA and unique personality.  I've known too many decent people who had views that were too different to believe otherwise.  Think about today's hot topics that all hinge on moral values: COVID-19 Response, Capitalism/Communism/Socialism, Worker's Rights, Civil Rights of Various Types, etc.  If there were an absolute moral code, the answer to these questions would be easy.  But there isn't one, or at least like you said there isn't one people know.

Edited May 20, 2020 by agrabes

[Frustration]

21 hours ago, agrabes said:

I don't define murder as the shedding of innocent blood.  I go by the legal definition, since murder is a legal term at least in my view.  Basically, killing someone by choice when you do not have the legal right to do so for reasons like self defense, as an executioner, or as a legal combatant during war.

I understand what you're saying regarding a person being good or bad.  But I'm also pointing out that what is good and what is bad is difficult to determine at a certain point.  Certain things and certain people we can say are good or evil with a pretty high level of confidence.  But others are not so clear.  For example, I have a family member on my wife's side who was known by his community and church as a great man.  He was always kind to even the lowest people in society and donated his time and money to help those in need, so much so that he lived a life of near poverty himself.  I went to his funeral a few years ago and was shocked that my wife's family had mixed feelings about him and some even refused to attend his funeral.  That's when I learned that he also treated his wife badly.  He wasn't physically abusive, but he was mean and borderline emotionally abusive.  He gave away their money without talking to his wife such that they could barely make ends meet and invited dangerous people who were known criminals into their home who took advantage of them.  Was he good or evil?  I say neither.  He did too much good to be called evil, but he did too much evil to be called good.  I feel like if you call a person a "good person" at least in this context of absolute morality, then they have to be fully good.

I'm not saying slavery was justified or right.  What I am saying is that there were people who did sincerely believe that it was justified and right.  There are a lot of things that were considered good and right historically that are considered gruesome crimes today.  Morality changes over time.  For thousands of years of human existence, slavery was considered to be justified.  Only in the last few years have we decided it is wrong.  Even though it seems absolutely wrong today, can we be sure than in another few hundred years slavery will become acceptable again?  Aside from slavery, what about war?  As recently as the early 1900's most people around the world believed that war did more good than harm overall.  It was a common belief that war brought out all the best human qualities and that only by facing mortal danger could you truly become a full adult.  Yet today, we view war as a necessary evil that is more often than not a waste of the lives of some of our best and brightest young people.  Anyone today who wanted to go to war to conquer some territory and give our young soldiers a chance at fame and glory would be condemned.

I get your point about there possibly being an absolute moral code that exists that may be beyond current human understanding.  It's possible, but humans have been studying this for hundreds and even thousands of years and haven't come up with it yet.  That doesn't mean it's not out there, but it makes me doubt it.  I think Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is the theory that comes closest, but even Kant himself did not feel he'd got it right.  Unfortunately, doing objective good is not as simple as doing what a person feels is right.  That is entirely subjective, based on societal and cultural expectations along with a person's own DNA and unique personality.  I've known too many decent people who had views that were too different to believe otherwise.  Think about today's hot topics that all hinge on moral values: COVID-19 Response, Capitalism/Communism/Socialism, Worker's Rights, Civil Rights of Various Types, etc.  If there were an absolute moral code, the answer to these questions would be easy.  But there isn't one, or at least like you said there isn't one people know.

I'm going to push back just a bit here so one thing that people misunderstand about my Moral viewpoint is the only two groups so people within them must be 100%, well no, it's a spectrum, but there is only good and evil, like a number-line, Zero representing those too young or incapable of making their own decisions for whatever reason;but other than that there are only two groups positive and negative, but there are literally infinite places along that line.

 

As to your relative, I can't say, personally I don't judge whether a person is good or evil by adding up their actions, judging a persons place is hard. Something I think we can agree upon, as what knowledge they had, and their intentions play a large role. For example I think that people who  aren't as socially aware would be less responsible for social missteps. However I do not believe that there is a middle ground or grayness, my most controversial take.

[agrabes]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

I'm going to push back just a bit here so one thing that people misunderstand about my Moral viewpoint is the only two groups so people within them must be 100%, well no, it's a spectrum, but there is only good and evil, like a number-line, Zero representing those too young or incapable of making their own decisions for whatever reason;but other than that there are only two groups positive and negative, but there are literally infinite places along that line.

 

As to your relative, I can't say, personally I don't judge whether a person is good or evil by adding up their actions, judging a persons place is hard. Something I think we can agree upon, as what knowledge they had, and their intentions play a large role. For example I think that people who  aren't as socially aware would be less responsible for social missteps. However I do not believe that there is a middle ground or grayness, my most controversial take.

Well, I can respect what you're saying for sure.  I just think your terminology is a little bit inconsistent with what you're saying.  I get your point - that a person can be "good" without being 100% good.  I mean, in casual terms that's how I think of things too.  Generally I think of someone who wants to do what's right and makes an effort as a good person.  But in terms of discussions about morality and moral systems, I try to be more precise with wording and meaning (not that I always succeed). 

If we talk about a black and white morality system, it means that any action or any person can only be good or evil.  There is no scale.  Hold the door for an elderly lady at the grocery store - 1.0 score, sacrifice your life to save your friend, 1.0 score.  Tell a lie to get yourself off work, 0.0 score, commit a mass shooting, 0.0 score.  You're a 1 or a 0, good or evil.  You can't be more good or less good because there is only good and evil, pure black and pure white.  That is a black and white morality system.

I agree with you that people should generally be held more or less responsible or be considered more or less good or evil based on their knowledge and capabilities.  But that is a moral relativist belief.  For example, a young child or a mentally handicapped person might not understand what it means for a person to own something.  So, I would consider that person "less" evil if they were to steal from someone, because they didn't understand what they were doing.  But if there is a more and a less evil, then there are shades of grey.  

I think where our views differ is that you believe there are shades of grey with a dividing line in between, that says to the left of this line is white and to the right is black.  In my view, the better way to look at it is to say "This is a light gray" or "This is a dark gray" or "This is pure black."  Anyway, just my two cents here.

[trav]

On 19.5.2020 at 5:22 PM, Frustration said:

See, here is the thing, only one of thos is murder. If someone has the means and threatened to destroy the world and you killed them, you have not shed inocent blood. And yes it is black and white, name a person who isn't either good or evil, and I will name you a person that doesn't exist.

 

 And this has to do with the discussion why?

 

Hitler did what he felt was right, was he "exactly as evil as humanity" the problem with morality is subjective arguments is that they fall apart. If only perception matters why is your veiw better than Hitler's? Why can't people steal if they think it's right? Society would cease to exsist if this where taken to it's logical conclusion.

 

And? So what? That doesn't make him good or even gain sympathy from me every war that has been fought from the dawn of time has in one way or another been about land why should this be different?

if you kill someone unlawfully (also a matter a definition) this is murder. no matter who that person is or what he plans to eventually do.

who are you to decide if the utter destruction of the earth and all of its inhabitant is not for a greater good in the end?

 

its relevant to the discussion since evil and good are purely based on perception. there is no evil. a wolf devouring his prey is not evil. a human killing someone is not evil. you, for one reason or another may consider it evil. which is provably circumstantial.

 

not addressing that hitler nonsense. morality is subjective. stealing is immoral in my opinion. not in general though, as stealing from someone who is extorted money/possession from you (lawfull or unlawfully) does not seem so immoral anymore. at least not to me.

 

what exactly makes you pick Kaladins side (the invaders) in this over Moashs side (the original inhabitants)?

Kaladin himself realized that the revelation that Parshmen were the original natives of Roshar was what broke the last Radiants. unlike them Moash made a decision instead of being conflicted. he choose to fight for the side that he considers to be the right one. that does not, by any means make him or his actions evil.

 

 

[Frustration]

2 hours ago, trav said:

what exactly makes you pick Kaladins side (the invaders) in this over Moashs side (the original inhabitants)?

Kaladin himself realized that the revelation that Parshmen were the original natives of Roshar was what broke the last Radiants. unlike them Moash made a decision instead of being conflicted. he choose to fight for the side that he considers to be the right one. that does not, by any means make him or his actions evil.

The humans won, it's their land now, has been for thousands of years.

[SanderFan69]

8 minutes ago, Frustration said:

The humans won, it's their land now, has been for thousands of years.

This has really interesting parallels to the Israel - Palestinian conflict. I wonder if that's where Brandon got his inspiration.

Israel was originally Jewish land, then (I don't know how) the Palestinians got it, and then the Jews came back to take it again (and succeeded). The Palestinians would be represented by the humans while the Jews would be represented by the Singers. In both conflicts, it is not clear who is right and who is wrong and each side has done bad things to the other.

[+Oltux72]

2 hours ago, trav said:

if you kill someone unlawfully (also a matter a definition) this is murder. no matter who that person is or what he plans to eventually do.

Elhokar was a soldier and he died in combat. And in giving the Bridge 4 salute Moash told Kaladin that he was killing ex-slaves in the name of the man under whose ultimate authority the members of Bridge 4 had been killed. A message that reached the intended goal.

As for what Adolin did, Alethi law has a very broad view on to which extent a High Prince can take the law into his own hands. The legality of his action is an open question.