Jump to content

Are fabrials humane?


Hen

Recommended Posts

The problem, in my opinion, is one of consent. The spren are not given the opportunity to consent to the fabrial [they are lured in and captured], so it is perceived as wrong by the spren, regardless of the relative comfort of the captured spren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Elsecaller_17.5 said:

Overall my gut says it's ok, but I think we must be missing something. I don't see anything wrong with common Fabrials, but Brandon said the general attitude in shadesmare is negative. I would think using a sapient spren would be a problem, but we see Radients using advanced fabrials and perfectly content oathgate spren.

My gut says it’s wrong, but I haven’t been able to find anything actually wrong with them. Other then the fact that higher spren don’t like them. Which, as Gears said, is probably a result of the way they are captured. 

I just wonder if it might turn into a parshman situation, where most people don’t think lesser spren can think, but they actually do to an extent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very similar question to animal rights. I don't think a firespren is anything to worry about, but there are clearly some spren that are more intelligent. However, pigs are pretty damnation intelligent and we factory farm them. Horses are intelligent and we used them as war machines for thousands of years. Elephants even more so, and they have also been tamed, yoked, and used as beasts of burden.

We're definitely going to push for more and more intelligent spren being trapped in fabrials to use as weapons, and the question of morality will grate at the Radiants and put them at odds with people like Navani who have no bond but want to use spren to defend themselves and use in the war against the singers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Half Shards aren't ok. Taking High Spren and trapping them is 100% wrong. Other fabrials are different. Personally if I'm willing to kill a cow to eat its meat(and I am) I also think its ok to use a Fabrial powered by what amounts to a cognitive animal. That said there are places I would draw the line. While I'm willing to eat meat I'm not willing to torture an animal. If the fabrial is causing greater than ordinary pain to the spren then no it isn't humane. There is an element of care that needs to be taken as well. Fabrials should be upkept, with constant Stormlight and the like. A bit like a useful pet. They should be well fed and well cared for. I almost wonder if Fabrials that are treated well don't operate more efficiently. It would be interesting to see Navani have an assistant that's constantly chattering at her Spanreed like it's her favorite kitten. And because she does it can hold Stormlight l weeping and do little doodles on its own for her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2020 at 11:43 PM, Aminar said:

Half Shards aren't ok. Taking High Spren and trapping them is 100% wrong. Other fabrials are different.

Half-shards arent different than other fabrials as far as we know, they are just Augmentor Fabrials.  They dont use Sapient Spren, if that's what you were thinking.

 

To the OP, Im with most here: it's the spren equivalent of animals, with all the same cultural divergence of opinion and fuzzy morality.  Syl's aunt likes to Hunt some spren, and many are objectively dangerous enough in shadesmar to warrant such things.  Many spren naturally join a living fabrial in one of the many Gemheart symbiotic relationships, so it's not like the process is innately unnatural or painful to the spren involved.  Also the Oathgate spren seemed sad that they could no longer serve their fabrial purpose, so they are not unhappy about being fabrials, at least.  All that to say it will come down to individual treatment; using a horse or ox for farm labor is not innately evil (imo) but if done without compassion it can easily become abusive.  

Past that I suspect several things but couldnt prove them:

  • Different spren cultures will have wildly different opinions on the matter, just like everything else. 
  • While not all fabrials are unpleasant to be in, some are probably worse than others.
  • I suspect that the fabrials that mimic Surges directly (Soulcasters, Regrowth Fabrial, etc) house Sapient spren that chose/were convinced to help but didnt want to commit to a full Nahel Bond.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quantus said:

Half-shards arent different than other fabrials as far as we know, they are just Augmentor Fabrials.  They dont use Sapient Spren, if that's what you were thinking.

 

To the OP, Im with most here: it's the spren equivalent of animals, with all the same cultural divergence of opinion and fuzzy morality.  Syl's aunt likes to Hunt some spren, and many are objectively dangerous enough in shadesmar to warrant such things.  Many spren naturally join a living fabrial in one of the many Gemheart symbiotic relationships, so it's not like the process is innately unnatural or painful to the spren involved.  Also the Oathgate spren seemed sad that they could no longer serve their fabrial purpose, so they are not unhappy about being fabrials, at least.  All that to say it will come down to individual treatment; using a horse or ox for farm labor is not innately evil (imo) but if done without compassion it can easily become abusive.  

Past that I suspect several things but couldnt prove them:

  • Different spren cultures will have wildly different opinions on the matter, just like everything else. 
  • While not all fabrials are unpleasant to be in, some are probably worse than others.
  • I suspect that the fabrials that mimic Surges directly (Soulcasters, Regrowth Fabrial, etc) house Sapient spren that chose/were convinced to help but didnt want to commit to a full Nahel Bond.  

 

 

Half shards are stated to use Spren that could cause a Radiant. Oathbringer Chapter 100 according to the Coppermind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aminar said:

Half shards are stated to use Spren that could cause a Radiant. Oathbringer Chapter 100 according to the Coppermind. 

I remember that scene, the bastract, musing tone MrT had made me think he was more speaking about Spren as a whole, not trying to say that those specific Augmentor fabrials are using sapient spren, which so far is a distinction that few living humans seem to even be aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Aminar said:

Half shards are stated to use Spren that could cause a Radiant. Oathbringer Chapter 100 according to the Coppermind. 

According to Taravangian. Mr T can simply make hyperbole, he can be lying, or he also can simply not know for sure. And, for the other hand, Fabrials can traped Spren witch is allready in Physical Realm. Spren need to be attracted by something/someone to go between realms - and we know that True Spren doesnt go Into Physical Realm often, unless reforming Radiants. And we saw small army armed with halfshards before that happens.

Edited by Bzhydack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aminar said:

Half shards are stated to use Spren that could cause a Radiant. Oathbringer Chapter 100 according to the Coppermind. 

2 hours ago, Quantus said:

I remember that scene, the bastract, musing tone MrT had made me think he was more speaking about Spren as a whole, not trying to say that those specific Augmentor fabrials are using sapient spren, which so far is a distinction that few living humans seem to even be aware of.

2 hours ago, Bzhydack said:

According to Taravangian. Mr T can simply make hyperbole, he can be lying, or he also can simply not know for sure. And, for the other hand, Fabrials can traped Spren witch is allready in Physical Realm. Spren need to be attracted by something/someone to go between realms - and we know that True Spren doesnt go Into Physical Realm often, unless reforming Radiants. And we saw small army armed with halfshards before that happens.

So here’s the actual quote for context:

Quote

Glad for the distraction, Dalinar took the shield, hefting it. “Half-shard?” he said, noting a steel box—with a gemstone inside—fastened to the inner surface. “Indeed,” Taravangian said. “Crude devices. There are legends of metal that can block a Shardblade. A metal that falls from the sky. Silver, but somehow lighter. I should like to see that, but for now we can use these.” Dalinar grunted. “You know how they make fabrials, don’t you?” Taravangian asked. “Enslaved spren?” “Spren can’t be ‘enslaved’ any more than a chull can.” The Stormfather rumbled distantly in his mind. “That gemstone,” Taravangian said, “imprisons the kind of spren that gives things substance, the kind that holds the world together. We have entrapped in that shield something that, at another time, might have blessed a Knight Radiant.”

My take on it after the Syl interlude and pretty confirmation of the cousinspren plate theory is that Mr. T is referring to the subspren that could be bonded to a radiant as armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MyrmidonOfAchilles said:

So here’s the actual quote for context:

My take on it after the Syl interlude and pretty confirmation of the cousinspren plate theory is that Mr. T is referring to the subspren that could be bonded to a radiant as armor.

I could definitely accept that interpretation. Regardless though, the part where MrT rejects the very concept of spren being enslaved, saying they are just like chulls makes it clear to me that he does not see any distinction between the sapient and lesser spren.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Quantus said:

I could definitely accept that interpretation. Regardless though, the part where MrT rejects the very concept of spren being enslaved, saying they are just like chulls makes it clear to me that he does not see any distinction between the sapient and lesser spren.  

That was Dalinar, sorry, I should have formatted it better. Taravangian is arguing the slavery angle.

Quote

Glad for the distraction, Dalinar took the shield, hefting it. “Half-shard?” he said, noting a steel box—with a gemstone inside—fastened to the inner surface.

“Indeed,” Taravangian said. “Crude devices. There are legends of metal that can block a Shardblade. A metal that falls from the sky. Silver, but somehow lighter. I should like to see that, but for now we can use these.”

Dalinar grunted.
 

“You know how they make fabrials, don’t you?” Taravangian asked. “Enslaved spren?”

“Spren can’t be ‘enslaved’ any more than a chull can.” The Stormfather rumbled distantly in his mind.

“That gemstone,” Taravangian said, “imprisons the kind of spren that gives things substance, the kind that holds the world together. We have entrapped in that shield something that, at another time, might have blessed a Knight Radiant.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MyrmidonOfAchilles said:

So here’s the actual quote for context:

My take on it after the Syl interlude and pretty confirmation of the cousinspren plate theory is that Mr. T is referring to the subspren that could be bonded to a radiant as armor.

Not reading the Syl interlude. It's out of order. But I don't think that's accurate. The lesser Spren aren't bound in the same way. I doubt Shardplate is always the same Spren, so much as Spren drawn to the Radiant at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aminar said:

Not reading the Syl interlude. It's out of order. But I don't think that's accurate. The lesser Spren aren't bound in the same way. I doubt Shardplate is always the same Spren, so much as Spren drawn to the Radiant at the time. 

... I mean like in the sense that it’s always windspren as a spren “species” that are drawn to Kal or gloryspren to Dalinar. I’m saying that a certain type (perhaps relevant to the stonewards) of subspren could be used in that fabrial and Taravangian could still be speaking truthfully about “at another time, might have blessed a Knight Radiant” but not be speaking of Truespren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2020 at 0:55 PM, PiedPeterPiper said:

My second argument is the "slippery slope" point: when do they stop? For the sake of debate, let's say Rosharan scholars have come to the consensus that it's okay to trap lesser spren. This could provide an easy transition similar views about sapient spren. If they already do it with one kind, what's to stop them from expanding their research for the sake of science?

The Slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy. Just because there are logical steps between different actions (the steps/slope) doesn't mean there is a causal link between them. 

 

(I've always disliked the argument but didn't know it was technically a logical fallacy until one of the recent Brandon live streams).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GudThymes said:

The Slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy. Just because there are logical steps between different actions (the steps/slope) doesn't mean there is a causal link between them. 

 

(I've always disliked the argument but didn't know it was technically a logical fallacy until one of the recent Brandon live streams).

Trust me, I’ve also seen the livestream. I’m not sure this was so important to point  out weeks after it was posted, though.

Besides which, many might argue that the slippery slope point has evolved from its original meaning precisely because everyone uses it that way. As long as it’s widely understood, the original intent is less important than its modern use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PiedPeterPiper said:

Besides which, many might argue that the slippery slope point has evolved from its original meaning precisely because everyone uses it that way. As long as it’s widely understood, the original intent is less important than its modern use.

ehhh, just because it is being used differently doesn't mean that it improves your argument. The issue I have with it is that you're comparing two wildly different things and saying that it naturally leads to the other. Creating a conjoiner fabrial using a non-sentient spren has a different moral basis than drawing a sentient spren like an Honorspren for a Half-shard. Saying that one will naturally lead to the other is misleading. It depends on your morals, if I draw the line at does the spren have it's own feelings, where I'll exploit one that does and won't exploit one that doesn't then clearly I won't ever make a half-shard. The slippery slope argument is wrong because you are saying that no matter what my morals or how I draw a line I will end up making a half shard. It doesn't make sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GudThymes said:

ehhh, just because it is being used differently doesn't mean that it improves your argument. The issue I have with it is that you're comparing two wildly different things and saying that it naturally leads to the other. Creating a conjoiner fabrial using a non-sentient spren has a different moral basis than drawing a sentient spren like an Honorspren for a Half-shard. Saying that one will naturally lead to the other is misleading. It depends on your morals, if I draw the line at does the spren have it's own feelings, where I'll exploit one that does and won't exploit one that doesn't then clearly I won't ever make a half-shard. The slippery slope argument is wrong because you are saying that no matter what my morals or how I draw a line I will end up making a half shard. It doesn't make sense

That's not what I'm saying, actually. Sure, you might not make a half-shard (although I disagree that it's humane as long as the spren is not sapient), but other scholars would use your already-established precedent to make a half-shard (and there's no way one could argue that's unrealistic, because it's exacly what happened in Jah Keved).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PiedPeterPiper said:

That's not what I'm saying, actually. Sure, you might not make a half-shard (although I disagree that it's humane as long as the spren is not sapient), but other scholars would use your already-established precedent to make a half-shard (and there's no way one could argue that's unrealistic, because it's exacly what happened in Jah Keved).

But we're talking morality here (are fabrials humane) you can't determine that one action is immoral because a distinctly different (but related) action is not. Should we not make butcher knives because someone else can use it to kill a person instead of an animal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

But we're talking morality here (are fabrials humane) you can't determine that one action is immoral because a distinctly different (but related) action is not. Should we not make butcher knives because someone else can use it to kill a person instead of an animal?

I disagree. Your analogy is not applicable in the way you thin it is, because butcher knives aren't useful in practicality when it comes to killing humans. That's why humans developed things like bows and swords and guns to kill each other, both of which were results of a culture, instigated by the butcher knife, where weapons are commonplace.

You might think this is far-fetched, but remember humankind's earliest sharp rocks, and how they later became knives and arrowheads, and how from there we realized that if you make the blade longer it will have farther reach, making it better for fighting, and once violence is an ingrained part of society, no one bats an eye at the first gun.

So let's say that, for the sake of argument, trapping non-sapient spren is humane (which I don't believe it is -- you've obviously read the post where I compared it to mistreatment of animals). The potential that it creates for wide-scale unjust imprisonment of thinking beings should definitely factor into the decision of the artifabrian. Here's another analogy: would you have sent Columbus on that first trade voyage because there was no nefarious intent if you had known that it would eventually lead to the torture and massacre of millions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PiedPeterPiper said:

I disagree. Your analogy is not applicable in the way you thin it is, because butcher knives aren't useful in practicality when it comes to killing humans. That's why humans developed things like bows and swords and guns to kill each other, both of which were results of a culture, instigated by the butcher knife, where weapons are commonplace.

You don't like my analogy but you're proving my point, My "slippery slope" argument above does not provide sufficient strength to prove a point in an argument. 

1 minute ago, PiedPeterPiper said:

Here's another analogy: would you have sent Columbus on that first trade voyage because there was no nefarious intent if you had known that it would eventually lead to the torture and massacre of millions?

There IS  a causal link in this comparison. You're saying Columbus actions will cause people to die. There is not a causal link with regards to the two types of spren. The fact that creation of fabrials using minor spren could lead to the use of sentient spren  does not mean that it will, there's no proof that at the time of creating a fabrial with a minor spren that they could do the same thing with major spren. It took a very long time for the scholars in Jah Keved to create half shards (which I find morally reprehensible). When Colombus was sent to the Americas they didn't know that it would cause death. You have to use the knowledge available to determine morality, it is unreasonable to expect someone to theorize all of the externalities their decision could cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

You don't like my analogy but you're proving my point, My "slippery slope" argument above does not provide sufficient strength to prove a point in an argument. 

I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make when I took it apart. You claimed that the invention of butcher knives did not lead to killing of people, and I extended the analogy to show that it, in fact, did. All it proved was that your "slippery slope" argument was not specific enough.

16 minutes ago, GudThymes said:

When Colombus was sent to the Americas they didn't know that it would cause death. You have to use the knowledge available to determine morality, it is unreasonable to expect someone to theorize all of the externalities their decision could cause.

Exactly. The Spanish crown had no idea how that first voyage would affect the course of history (Columbus must have been extremely Ta'veerin), but they went with it anyway, similar to how, as you pointed out, the first artifabrians had no way of knowing that their fabrials would lend premise to the making of half-shards. We're not arguing about what should have been done long in the past; we're arguing about if what they did was right to begin with.

Neither do I buy your point that there's no causal link between the trapping of minor spren and the trapping of major spren.

1) How much did the Jah Keved scholars really know about the intelligence of these spren? For all we're given, we have no idea if they started with malicious intent or if all they knew was that certain spren were more powerful than others, and the more powerful spren could create more powerful fabrials.

2) The fact that no one (as far as we know) had voiced concerns about trapping minor spren really should have been a giant warning as to how they would have treated major spren. When the parshmen slaves became the Listeners, many Brightlords argued that the Parshendi should be enslaved anyway so they could have their free labor back. Do you really think the same mentality would not apply to spren?

Edited by PiedPeterPiper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm going off what people have said about subspren lacking sentience or essentially being an 'animal' I agree with some people that are saying we're still missing something.

What I think is that sapient spren are the homosapiens and subspren are the neanderthals.

Syl refers to them as cousins yet obviously windspren and honorspren are completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BrightLordSwageas said:

Syl refers to them as cousins yet obviously windspren and honorspren are completely different.

This is a very difficult statement, as the differnce between Syl and other Windspren, at least in the Physical Realm, comes from her bonding Kaladin. Otherwise she would just behave like her cousins. So I see not that a big diffrence, at least in an unbonded situation.

 

15 hours ago, BrightLordSwageas said:

What I think is that sapient spren are the homosapiens and subspren are the neanderthals.

 

This comparison is a bit difficult, because you make the assumption, that Neanderthals were "lesser humans", which, in fact, they weren't. But this is a different and difficult topic. But let me just say this, Neanderthalensis didn't disappear because they were more undeveloped than the modern human, but because they were fewer Neanderthals than Homo Sapiens. In fact, they lived several thousand years in coexistence in Europe and the Middle East.

But I think I get your point.

 

The whole topic is especially difficult when you have the origin of spren in mind. They are Investiture given a form, created by human perception/imagination of the world, the older spren of the perception of the singers. So is it unethical to use a product of universal perception to fuel or direct fabrials, which are just another idea of how the world could work?

An other idea that came to my mind right now: In the interlude with the scholar researching flamespren. Is it unethical to draw flamespren, because they become locked in the drawn shape? In my understanding this limits their freedom as well.

 

 

So over all,  come to the conclusion, that using lesser spren in fabrials is simply an other way for the spren to fit into its role as a product of human imagination. With higher spren it gets more tricky, because they can gain sentience in the PR and HAVE sentience in the CR 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the Stormfather compares the lesser spren to beasts. People have no problem with putting birds in cages. And we're not even going to talk about what we do with cattle.
So it seems to me as moral as any other factor dependent on livestock, and with much less pain or death.
Doing the same with high Spren is like slavery. Not that the Alethi are averse to the idea, but Dalinar wants to change the way the world works. In addition, the 9 main types can be convinced to form Nahel bonds. The problem is that there are other high Spren outside these organizations, and in a situation of total war things can get ugly.
Furthermore, the Odium team would hardly have the same consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...