Moash

[Frustration]

25 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Elhokar was a combatant. I am sorry, but he entered combat with a blade in his hand. Arguably Jezrien also fell into that category. He was still part of the oathpact.

Undefended and barely cognizant, and the Oathpact no longer matters due to the Everstorm.

[theTruthshaper]

Still, killing Jezrien is hardly immoral. 

[SanderFan69]

21 minutes ago, The_Elsecaller said:

Still, killing Jezrien is hardly immoral. 

Moash himself admits that Jezrien is known as "the greatest human who had ever lived." I would argue that killing the greatest human who had ever lived would be considered immoral. In fact, I would argue that killing any human who you don't really no much about just because your master tells you to would be considered evil. Jezrien may have broken the oathpact, but he had defended humanity from destruction for thousands of years before that. Just because he was driven to madness does not mean that he deserves to die. I think this is Moash's only truly evil moment. At this point he has pretty much completely given himself over to Odium. While he did some immoral things beforehand, like choosing his desire for vengeance over his friendship with Kal, those actions were at least understandable.

[theTruthshaper]

In a war, if the greatest human who ever lived is on the other side, will you not kill him?

[SanderFan69]

If I was in a war where an evil ball of hatred ordered me to kill the greatest human who ever lived, who at this point was a completely mad beggar, I probably would not do it unless I was threatened with some kind of bodily harm, which Moash is not. Moash has put his trust in the wrong place, largely because it was the best way for him to get his revenge. It is understandable how he got there, but killing people and furthering the agenda of a big ball of hatred that wants to kill all the people on the planet is evil.

[theTruthshaper]

Does Moash know about Odium? I don't think so.

[+robardin]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Elhokar was a combatant. I am sorry, but he entered combat with a blade in his hand. Arguably Jezrien also fell into that category. He was still part of the oathpact.

Yes, that's what I mean by "different from what happened back at the palace" (at the warcamps). Not only because Elhokar was a combatant, with drawn Blade in the middle of a battle, but because Moash was coming straight for him, openly. Kaladin or anyone else could have acted to intercede, even if Elhokar himself was preoccupied or incapacitated.

Remember the last thing that Kaladin said to Moash, who was still hesitating as to whether or not to confront Kaladin to get at Elhokar at the palace. He'd already rejected Kaladin's defense of Elhokar saying Roshone, not him, being the one truly at fault for his grandparents' death; that's his right. What really makes Moash's actions then wrong was the subterfuge of it all. And in my view, that contributed to what killed Kaladin's bond with Syl: not just the decision to betray his oath to Dalinar, who had assigned him bodyguard duty to Elhokar, but the concept of honor that was being broken in the way he was doing it.

"We have to be better than this, you and I... Moash, we're not going to be this kind of men. Murders in dark corridors, killing a drunk man because we find him distasteful, telling ourselves it's for the good of the kingdom. If I kill a man, I'm going to do in the sunlight, and I'm going to do it only because there is no other way."

What was Moash proposing to do, at the time? To kill Elhokar but to frame the Assassin in White for the action, and then to continue living on as a high ranking member of Bridge Four, the most trusted corps under Dalinar Kholin - the corps that, as far as anybody knew, had repeatedly saved his nephew Elhokar's life in the past, but sadly was not able to do so in the end.

And what was Moash evidently prepared to do? To kill Kaladin to complete that deception... And then to go back to Bridge Four. He may not have thought about what that would be like, but that's what he was effectively trying to accomplish.

In contrast, what Moash did at Kholinar to kill Elhokar, and later to kill Jezrien on assignment from Odium who he'd openly declared for, may be as much or more "traitorous" to Rosharan humankind, but it is not "dishonorable".

[+robardin]

Just now, The_Elsecaller said:

Does Moash know about Odium? I don't think so.

You mean at the time he goes to kill Jezrien? Most definitely. When he was given the golden-white knife to do that deed, Hnanan told him, "Odium has a command for you. This is rare for a human." He doesn't bat an eye at the mention of Odium, he just says, "Speak it."

[theTruthshaper]

2 minutes ago, robardin said:

You mean at the time he goes to kill Jezrien? Most definitely. When he was given the golden-white knife to do that deed, Hnanan told him, "Odium has a command for you. This is rare for a human." He doesn't bat an eye at the mention of Odium, he just says, "Speak it."

Ah, sorry forgot about that.

8 minutes ago, robardin said:

Yes, that's what I mean by "different from what happened back at the palace" (at the warcamps). Not only because Elhokar was a combatant, with drawn Blade in the middle of a battle, but because Moash was coming straight for him, openly. Kaladin or anyone else could have acted to intercede, even if Elhokar himself was preoccupied or incapacitated.

Remember the last thing that Kaladin said to Moash, who was still hesitating as to whether or not to confront Kaladin to get at Elhokar at the palace. He'd already rejected Kaladin's defense of Elhokar saying Roshone, not him, being the one truly at fault for his grandparents' death; that's his right. What really makes Moash's actions then wrong was the subterfuge of it all. And in my view, that contributed to what killed Kaladin's bond with Syl: not just the decision to betray his oath to Dalinar, who had assigned him bodyguard duty to Elhokar, but the concept of honor that was being broken in the way he was doing it.

"We have to be better than this, you and I... Moash, we're not going to be this kind of men. Murders in dark corridors, killing a drunk man because we find him distasteful, telling ourselves it's for the good of the kingdom. If I kill a man, I'm going to do in the sunlight, and I'm going to do it only because there is no other way."

What was Moash proposing to do, at the time? To kill Elhokar but to frame the Assassin in White for the action, and then to continue living on as a high ranking member of Bridge Four, the most trusted corps under Dalinar Kholin - the corps that, as far as anybody knew, had repeatedly saved his nephew Elhokar's life in the past, but sadly was not able to do so in the end.

And what was Moash evidently prepared to do? To kill Kaladin to complete that deception... And then to go back to Bridge Four. He may not have thought about what that would be like, but that's what he was effectively trying to accomplish.

In contrast, what Moash did at Kholinar to kill Elhokar, and later to kill Jezrien on assignment from Odium who he'd openly declared for, may be as much or more "traitorous" to Rosharan humankind, but it is not "dishonorable".

Still, you said what I wanted to say much more eloquently.

[SanderFan69]

3 minutes ago, robardin said:

You mean at the time he goes to kill Jezrien? Most definitely. When he was given the golden-white knife to do that deed, Hnanan told him, "Odium has a command for you. This is rare for a human." He doesn't bat an eye at the mention of Odium, he just says, "Speak it."

I was about to put the same thing.

I guess you could argue that he probably does not know about all of Odium's plans, but his lack of remorse in the killing shows that he does not have much of a moral code.

[+Oltux72]

7 minutes ago, robardin said:

Remember the last thing that Kaladin said to Moash, who was still hesitating as to whether or not to confront Kaladin to get at Elhokar at the palace. He'd already rejected Kaladin's defense of Elhokar saying Roshone, not him, being the one truly at fault for his grandparents' death; that's his right. What really makes Moash's actions then wrong was the subterfuge of it all.

Elhokar hid behind his office and title. Challenging him openly for a vendetta would not have worked.

7 minutes ago, robardin said:

And in my view, that contributed to what killed Kaladin's bond with Syl: not just the decision to betray his oath to Dalinar, who had assigned him bodyguard duty to Elhokar, but the concept of honor that was being broken in the way he was doing it.

True, but specific to Kaladin. You cannot blame Moash for Kaladin signing on with Dalinar.

7 minutes ago, robardin said:

"We have to be better than this, you and I... Moash, we're not going to be this kind of men. Murders in dark corridors, killing a drunk man because we find him distasteful, telling ourselves it's for the good of the kingdom. If I kill a man, I'm going to do in the sunlight, and I'm going to do it only because there is no other way."

What was Moash proposing to do, at the time? To kill Elhokar but to frame the Assassin in White for the action, and then to continue living on as a high ranking member of Bridge Four, the most trusted corps under Dalinar Kholin - the corps that, as far as anybody knew, had repeatedly saved his nephew Elhokar's life in the past, but sadly was not able to do so in the end.

Well, suicide as a precondition for avenging your grandparents is asking a bit much.

7 minutes ago, robardin said:

And what was Moash evidently prepared to do? To kill Kaladin to complete that deception... And then to go back to Bridge Four. He may not have thought about what that would be like, but that's what he was effectively trying to accomplish.

Kaladin went back on his word, not Moash.

 

[theTruthshaper]

I would give an example of Kelsier/Vin who also don't have a moral code but are still heroes.

Edited June 8, 2020 by The_Elsecaller

[Frustration]

8 minutes ago, The_Elsecaller said:

I would give an example of Kelsier/Vin who also don't have a moral code but are still heroes.

Wrong, SH

Spoiler

Kelsier spared a pregnant noble woman.

 

[theTruthshaper]

Did I miss something?

Spoiler

When did Kelsier kill people in SH?

 

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, The_Elsecaller said:

Did I miss something?

  Reveal hidden contents

When did Kelsier kill people in SH?

 

It was a flashback.

[SanderFan69]

13 minutes ago, The_Elsecaller said:

I would give an example of Kelsier/Vin who also don't have a moral code but are still heroes.

Kelsier fought for the end to oppression against the skaa. He killed in order to make things better for people and he did so by his own accord.

Vin only killed when she or somebody who she cared about was being attacked or when pursuing her own goals of either helping skaa or saving the world.

Moash killed Elhokar in retribution for his part in the death's of Moash's grandparents. This makes sense. An eye for an eye is a type of morality. However, killing Jezrien did not help Moash get revenge for his parent's death and it did not help him end the oppression he has witnessed against both darkeyes and singers. There is no justification, so there is no morality to it.

[Frustration]

4 minutes ago, SanderFan69 said:

Kelsier fought for the end to oppression against the skaa. He killed in order to make things better for people and he did so by his own accord.

Vin only killed when she or somebody who she cared about was being attacked or when pursuing her own goals of either helping skaa or saving the world.

I would take it a step further and say that Kelisier was waging war on The Final Empire.

[theTruthshaper]

Before we go on, we must laugh.

With that out the way, I agree with your point. You are saying that a killing is not immoral if and only if there is a good justification for it.

That said, there is almost no justification for most wars.

[Frustration]

8 minutes ago, The_Elsecaller said:

Before we go on, we must laugh.

With that out the way, I agree with your point. You are saying that a killing is not immoral if and only if there is a good justification for it.

That said, there is almost no justification for most wars.

War is part of life, only relatively recently have people began to have this universal hatred of war. And while yes starting a war for no reason is bad only the guys at the top are responsible and carry all guilt.

[theTruthshaper]

Moash was wrong, I agree with that. I think the best moral system is utilitarianism. So what Moash did could be very, very bad, since it will probably have very bad consequences. The only reason I am arguing is because I can't understand which system you people are using.

[trav]

On 3.6.2020 at 6:27 PM, Frustration said:

The obvious problem with not recognizing the right of conquest is that it invalidates almost every civilization since the dawn of time.

its almost as if you know that there is in fact NO RIGHT of conquest. the conqueror did someone wrong at some point. you (YOURSELF AND NOONE ELSE) choose to be fine with this. for one reason or another.

that does not make it fine/right though. it only means you perceive it that way.

18 hours ago, Frustration said:

Not really stealing at that point is it?

conquering back your own lands isn't conquest either. according to that logic.

its increasingly hard to judge where you draw the line in this.

[trav]

13 hours ago, SanderFan69 said:

Kelsier fought for the end to oppression against the skaa. He killed in order to make things better for people and he did so by his own accord.

since we are in the Stormlight section... Mistborn spoilers

 

Vin and Kelsier only thought they were doing something good. in reality they were working towards freeing a god of destruction. its a good example, but for the opposite of what you intended.

both were doing everything they could with the best of intentions (only for the skaa...). ultimately their actions lead to more death and discord. not to mention that it almost brought upon the end of the world. if it wasn't for Sazed everything (literally) would have been destroyed for what Vin and Kelsier did.

Edited June 9, 2020 by trav

[AonEne]

On 6/8/2020 at 6:49 AM, Frustration said:

Who where actually had to think about whether Kaladin should kill Elhokar? We all knew it was wrong. And no one blames him for killing the Parshendi because that wasn't.

Gonna have to disagree here, both of those are heavily debatable, especially the latter.

Kelsier and Vin did have moral codes, though neither were conventional. Whether or not Kelsier is a hero is a discussion for the Mistborn subforum, but you could easily argue that he's not.

[Karger]

22 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Elhokar was a combatant. I am sorry, but he entered combat with a blade in his hand. Arguably Jezrien also fell into that category. He was still part of the oathpact.

He was not.  He was holding a child and a picture.  Where is the blade?

[+Oltux72]

1 hour ago, Karger said:

He was not.  He was holding a child and a picture.  Where is the blade?

He hadn't surrendered, still a combatant, even if a failure as a fighter, too.