Dissatisfaction with this particular theme of Brandon

[bmcclure7]

I mainly writing this to try to understand my own thoughts on this. I don’t really expect any replies, but if you do want to reply, that’s fine.
A core theme of a Brandon is ignorance. Seems to portray everyone as ignorant wandering around in the dark, especially about things concerning morality. But the more I read to him, the more he uses this theme. The more dissatisfied with it I become. In This last book it particularly irked me. I’ve been trying to figure out why.
 

more I think about it I think it comes down to that this even if it is true it is unbelievable from the human perspective. True, you can all say that we are all ignorant wandering in the dark, but no one really believes that at least no one I’ve met. True I’ve met people who say that they don’t actually have any moral knowledge only a moral perspective but when I actually confronted they vehemently insist that actually they KNOW murder is wrong, racism is wrong and so on.

Real ignorance it seems should lead to stressful indecision or depressing nihilism. Both of which are mind rejects on our subconscious level.

I think the reason why it particularly bothered me in this last book was because it seemed to go contrary to the theme of this book . Because if this is true then Nale is right. If it is true that everyone is coming from a place of ignorance concerning morality than the only thing you can do is trust in something beyond human. And hope that they or it is better. Well those are my thoughts take them as you will.

[Singworlder They/Them/Their]

I actually enjoyed this theme in Wind and Truth very much, but I understand your frustration. Sanderson’s characters’ moral discussions are, in my opinion, prompts for us to question our morals with an extreme perspective, one that we don’t usually tap into in our daily lives. It’s supposed to make you feel frustrated, confused, and a possibly little scared. If this shakes your philosophy, good; now go out and find a better one that will make sense to you, with good reasons to keep it stable.

P.S. If anyone has found what I just asked you all to look for, please tell.

 

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

I rather like this theme because I find it to be largely true in most moral circumstances, but I can see your argument. To just address your last point, I don't necessarily think it suggests you shouldn't trust your own morals; rather, I think it says you should constantly reevaluate your beliefs.

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

Yes I agree with what stormcursed and singworlder have said and to follow up on what stormcursed said, personally WaT has pushed me to revaluate the way I look at the world because of the characters moral ignorance and I think your right at a base level everyone has a understanding of morals but if you ask deeper questions the morals get trickier. 
 

for example from a entirely moral standpoint if you were at a place where multiple people could die the morally correct thing to do is save as many people as possible however if a parent or loved one is there and you face the choice of saving ten people but not the loved one or saving the loved one but not the ten people you will likely choose to save the loved one even if the truly moral decision would be saving the ten people.

[Leuthie]

On 6/24/2025 at 5:13 PM, Honors ghost said:

Yes I agree with what stormcursed and singworlder have said and to follow up on what stormcursed said, personally WaT has pushed me to revaluate the way I look at the world because of the characters moral ignorance and I think your right at a base level everyone has a understanding of morals but if you ask deeper questions the morals get trickier. 
 

for example from a entirely moral standpoint if you were at a place where multiple people could die the morally correct thing to do is save as many people as possible however if a parent or loved one is there and you face the choice of saving ten people but not the loved one or saving the loved one but not the ten people you will likely choose to save the loved one even if the truly moral decision would be saving the ten people.

Your moral conundrum isn't as clear as you paint it. Quantity over quality, sacrificing someone against their will for random people none of you know... Here's my heirarchy of who to save first:

1. The most likely to be saved (closest, least damaged, etc)
2. People I know
3. People I don't know
4. Animals I know
5. Animals I don't know
6. Things

Quantity doesn't factor into it. I'll leave 100 people I don't know to save my wife. Hopefully I can come back for them when she's safe. The fact that I'd save them before my dog is good enough for me.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

It sounds to me like you are having a tough time being confronted with the ideas of objective vs subjective morality. I get it - it can be scary to realize that there might not actually be any objectively 'good' or 'bad' in the universe and that these ideas are simply the way we as a human society have chosen to define and categorize our interactions and behaviors based on the impact they have.

These ideas are very complicated, and have been debated for a loooong time. Brandon's exploration of these themes is (imo) intended to force us to confront what guides our own morality and what our view of 'good' and 'bad' are rooted in. For many on the religious side, the guiding factor is what their god(s) tell them to do and not do - but how often have horrible acts (genocide, murder, SA, etc.) been done in the name of religion and in the name of one god or another? Many popular religions claim a belief in objective morality, but their scripture and belief claims are rooted in contradictory commands at different times. Their god can commit atrocities, and they must accept those atrocities as morally correct because they come from a morally superior being who must have a good explanation for it that we just can't understand. What this means is that those people actually follow a subjective morality - based on the subjective views and commands of their chosen deity.

For me personally, I strongly believe that there is no truly objective morality or objectively 'good' and 'bad' because those things are defined by our human experience and perspectives/goals. I think we have developed instinctive behavioral patterns that are better for society as a whole - being a highly social and community-driven species, we have evolved to prioritize behaviors that will be better for (a) the species as a whole and (b) our own individual survival. A community with a general social contract where everyone agrees that murder is bad and we shouldn't do it will survive better. Individually, I know that living in a place where people are not murdered is a safer and happier way to exist, which encourages me to also not go around murdering people. Laws help enforce and reinforce these behaviors.

Now, just because something is not objectively good or bad doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to build a society with structure based on what we subjectively view as good and bad. Recognizing that it is subjective does not change the importance of morality, it just helps us create a framework for why we need moral guidelines and what they should be based on. The way we do this (and have always done this throughout history) is through discourse and debate - one side will argue for why a certain action/behavior is not moral, while another side will argue for why it is moral. Ideally, we can work through these issues as a society and come to a general consensus on what those moral guidelines should be. I actually think this points strongly towards the idea that we actually are ignorant and wandering in the dark. I get that it's a scary and uncomfortable thought initially, but it doesn't remove our responsibility to actively and seriously engage with these thoughts and ensure that our own morality is not being outsourced to traditional guidelines that are not rooted in sensibility and reason. 

I think it's actually pretty great that the first few books of SLA were focused on the exploration of blind acceptance to oaths, the idea that one should always keep an oath regardless of the outcome simply because it is 'honorable' to keep the oath... and then it all gets flipped on it's head with Sigzil and Dalinar and Fen and others all rejecting their oaths while doing what they viewed as the right thing. Sure, you can argue that it was wrong... but it can also be argued that it was right. We don't have all the answers, we don't know the future... all we can each do is try our best in every situation to do what we believe is right based on our individual and subjective moral guidings. Anything that makes us think deeply about what the driving force(s) is/are behind our moral compass is useful and important. We should question our morals to make sure that we are being consistent, rational, and honest with ourselves.

On 6/24/2025 at 3:31 PM, bmcclure7 said:

I think the reason why it particularly bothered me in this last book was because it seemed to go contrary to the theme of this book . Because if this is true then Nale is right. If it is true that everyone is coming from a place of ignorance concerning morality than the only thing you can do is trust in something beyond human. And hope that they or it is better. Well those are my thoughts take them as you will.

I think the point is more so that we can choose for ourselves what is right. Nale chose to completely outsource his own moral compass to whatever laws are made in whatever land he is in... that's one way to go about it but I think it's a pretty stupid and lazy choice. Going that route lets one pretend that they are not responsible for moral decisions, that the only thing that matters is doing what the law says. This does not allow for one to question the law and try to improve it - personally I believe that laws can be and often are immoral (from my subjective opinion)

As for trusting in something beyond human... why? Why can't we, as a society, simply try our best to make laws and guidelines that help protect people from harm and create a safe community that maximizes individual freedoms (while obviously punishing any act that would be stepping on someone else's freedoms... like murder, theft, etc.)? I think if we spent more time trying to make the world a better place for ALL instead of holding on to tradition for the sake of tradition, there would be a lot less suffering in the world. Look how long it took us to realize that slavery was an abhorrent practice? Or that the LGBTQ community deserves all the same rights to the pursuit of happiness that everyone else has? We have a lot to learn still as a society, but as we continue to progress I have faith that we will develop better systems/laws/cultural practices that will make the world safer and happier. And I believe that should be a major guiding factor in our subjective moral development.

[+Oltux72 he/him]

On 6/27/2025 at 5:49 PM, CognitiveShadow said:

As for trusting in something beyond human... why? Why can't we, as a society, simply try our best to make laws and guidelines that help protect people from harm and create a safe community that maximizes individual freedoms (while obviously punishing any act that would be stepping on someone else's freedoms... like murder, theft, etc.)?

Because these goals and other goals are independent of each other therefore will conflict eventually.

To give you a trivial example, lest this get unnecessarily political: WiFi is an established technology precisely because governments imposed the standard. The idea of limited freedoms governed by strict necessity and nevertheless getting an optimum outcome for the community has been falsified.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Because these goals and other goals are independent of each other therefore will conflict eventually.

To give you a trivial example, lest this get unnecessarily political: WiFi is an established technology precisely because governments imposed the standard. The idea of limited freedoms governed by strict necessity and nevertheless getting an optimum outcome for the community has been falsified.

I'm struggling to see the disagreement here. WiFi is not something that exists on it's own - it's just a name/term assigned to the specific standards defined and adopted by industries and governments. The benefit is that everyone gets aligned on the same standards, which allows everyone to build other products that can safely assume compatibility. It sets a foundation that we can build off of, just like morality does. But WiFi is not some kind of transcendental thing that was revealed to humans as an objectively "this is the only right way to do it". It isn't something that we had to look to a higher power for in order to be able to define the standards or anything.

Just like we don't need to look to some higher power or something beyond human (that may or may not even exist) in order to determine what is right and what is wrong. At the end of the day, if someone disagrees with the standards for WiFi or finds a method that is more advantageous for society... well, society will eventually make the shift to the better platform. There will be growing pains and products that are made obsolete in the process, but everyone will eventually build for a better future and better products on a cohesive platform that is expected to be adopted by the most people... simply because it is the most advantageous for society.

We are seeing this with Bluetooth - the Bluetooth/Sig group is moving towards a new foundational standard that removes some of the limitations that regular Bluetooth has. The new platform is called LE Audio or Auracast. It allows people to connect multiple headphones or output devices to the same source device (TV, speakers at train station, etc.) which is not possible on the current platform. What 'beyond human' thing did we need to reach out to in order to find out what the 'correct' standards should be? None, we simply continued to gain a better understanding about what is possible and what needs to change in order to make the world a better place.

Or if I've just misunderstood the argument you are trying to make please let me know.

[Leuthie]

On 6/24/2025 at 1:31 PM, bmcclure7 said:

I mainly writing this to try to understand my own thoughts on this. I don’t really expect any replies, but if you do want to reply, that’s fine.
A core theme of a Brandon is ignorance. Seems to portray everyone as ignorant wandering around in the dark, especially about things concerning morality. But the more I read to him, the more he uses this theme. The more dissatisfied with it I become. In This last book it particularly irked me. I’ve been trying to figure out why.
 

more I think about it I think it comes down to that this even if it is true it is unbelievable from the human perspective. True, you can all say that we are all ignorant wandering in the dark, but no one really believes that at least no one I’ve met. True I’ve met people who say that they don’t actually have any moral knowledge only a moral perspective but when I actually confronted they vehemently insist that actually they KNOW murder is wrong, racism is wrong and so on.

Real ignorance it seems should lead to stressful indecision or depressing nihilism. Both of which are mind rejects on our subconscious level.

I think the reason why it particularly bothered me in this last book was because it seemed to go contrary to the theme of this book . Because if this is true then Nale is right. If it is true that everyone is coming from a place of ignorance concerning morality than the only thing you can do is trust in something beyond human. And hope that they or it is better. Well those are my thoughts take them as you will.

Do you know the source of your moral code? Do you know why your friends think murder, racism and so on are wrong? Do you think those who murder, racism or so on believe that what they are doing is right? If you don't have a ready answer, that's what ignorance looks like. Don't worry, most people are ignorant. 

Ignorance of the source of your morality doesn't result in indecision or nihilism (although your statement that the mind rejects those on a subconscious level is wrong), it results in poor choices when conflicting sets of moral touch points are experienced. Not in the person making poor choices, but in the person believing that all choices available are poor ones. THIS is what Sanderson explores.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Leuthie

[clowncarcrash]

Can you like, give examples of what scenes irk you? I am having a tough time conceptualizing what you're critiquing?

I feel ignorance is  completely justified in the book because very often are books constrained in a static world where the status quo is maintained.

There's wars, godlike beings coming into play that completely dismantles any rigid structure given the extreme circumstances so morality is going to be questioned when so much is in flux. 

 

 

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

13 hours ago, Leuthie said:

it results in poor choices when conflicting sets of moral touch points are experienced. Not in the person making poor choices, but in the person believing that all choices available are poor ones. THIS is what Sanderson explores.

Can you elaborate on this a little more? I am trying to make sure I understood it all but I think I like where you are going with it. Are you highlighting that when someone is ignorant of the reasons behind their own morality they might come into points of conflict where they believe they don't have any good choices, but really it could be that they haven't dont the work to build a framework that truly guides their moral compass in more difficult times?

Like for example if you believe the killing someone is wrong, but you also believe that everything your god commands is right.. and then you somehow receive a command from your god to kill someone... that kind of a situation? Or more specific to the books - Sigzil and Rosharan's in general viewing what the Radiant's did as objectively wrong (rejecting their oaths and dead-eyeing their spren) but when placed in a position where he was able to reject his oaths to save his spren from a more permanent end, he chose to do the 'bad' thing in order to get a better outcome. 

For me these things all point to the nuance of what is right and what is wrong. It's all constructed by our own subjective viewpoints and beliefs, and the more we explore that and consider what it means, the more capable we can be in difficult situations of analyzing our potential actions and their impact without holding on to prior presuppositions about what is objectively required of us in any given moment

[+Oltux72 he/him]

21 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

I'm struggling to see the disagreement here. WiFi is not something that exists on it's own - it's just a name/term assigned to the specific standards defined and adopted by industries and governments. The benefit is that everyone gets aligned on the same standards, which allows everyone to build other products that can safely assume compatibility.

Yes. That is the benefit. But you are not allowed to use that frequency band unless you keep to such rules.

But I see that we cannot get to the core of the issue without taking more political examples. Why are we generally not allowed to consume opium? Looking at the opium wars I am hardly going to argue that the state is abusing its power in banning opium. But given that people are perfectly legally able to drink themselves to death, you cannot argue that banning opium is necessary to stop people from harming other people.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

9 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

But I see that we cannot get to the core of the issue without taking more political examples. Why are we generally not allowed to consume opium? Looking at the opium wars I am hardly going to argue that the state is abusing its power in banning opium. But given that people are perfectly legally able to drink themselves to death, you cannot argue that banning opium is necessary to stop people from harming other people.

I think this is an excellent example of starting a conversation about a topic about what society should and should not engage in when it comes to regulation. There are issues to consider - are we preventing people from choosing to live a free life by banning opium? What are the harms to the life of the individual and/or society if widespread use of the substances occur? Essentially we are looking at the impact and determining whether or not there needs to be societal regulation in place to prevent a potentially damaging impact. 

Personally, I am not nearly well-informed enough on the topic to give you any answer. In general I think legalization of drug use is often a good move because it provides more regulated and safe circumstances should people choose to use the stuff. It also takes away the power and control that illegal organizations that are currently distributing it have over society. So I would likely lean towards government regulated safety standards to ensure people aren't getting mysterious substances that haven't been tested for toxic contaminants, etc. But regardless, I would view this as an open topic that needs serious debate and consideration regarding the pros and cons. Again - this is something that people can debate on and decide what changes (if any) need to be made to improve the current societal structure we have in place. Your examples are all in alignment with the idea of subjective morality that requires an appreciation for nuance and recognition that there likely is not an eternally 'true' answer to the question.

Can you please tell me how this is an argument for us to stop using societal discourse as a way to define (and refine) what we view subjectively as good/bad? You first jumped in here quoting the part of my inital comment where I referred to the idea of trusting in something beyond human as something we don't need. My point was that we can determine as a society what is moral and immoral based on how the action impacts well-being. So far you have only used examples of regulation and I haven't been able to tell if you support those examples or not. 

My whole argument is that we are 'ignorant wandering in the dark' as OP put it when it comes to morality. I don't believe there is some outside force that dictates what is morally good/bad and that we need to look to some invisible party or something beyond human to somehow pass knowledge to us about what we should consider moral or immoral. I think that is a terrible way to frame one's ideas around morality, and it's a method that has been hijacked by many throughout history to enrich themselves and to control large groups of people. Instead I think we should look critically at what govern's our morality and make sure that we have done the work to properly reason out why something must be viewed as moral or immoral. I think that's actually what we've done throughout history, sans the disruptive influences of people who claim god told them that it's ok for them to have slaves or that it's necessary to stone a woman who commits adultery. That is why I am opposed to looking to 'something beyond human' - it's always some unprovable claim with zero logical explanation behind it.

[bmcclure7]

On 6/30/2025 at 7:17 PM, Leuthie said:

Do you know the source of your moral code? Do you know why your friends think murder, racism and so on are wrong? Do you think those who murder, racism or so on believe that what they are doing is right? If you don't have a ready answer, that's what ignorance looks like. Don't worry, most people are ignorant. 

Ignorance of the source of your morality doesn't result in indecision or nihilism (although your statement that the mind rejects those on a subconscious level is wrong), it results in poor choices when conflicting sets of moral touch points are experienced. Not in the person making poor choices, but in the person believing that all choices available are poor ones. THIS is what Sanderson explores.

Yes, actually my moral code comes from Christian ethics. Most people’s does it indirectly come from Christian ethics also. I highly doubt you actually believe you are morally ignorant. If so, then what is by what right do you have to judge the rapist or murderer? Again by your own logic, they claim that doing the right thing who are you to say differently if you come from a place of ignorance

On 6/24/2025 at 6:13 PM, Singworlder said:

I actually enjoyed this theme in Wind and Truth very much, but I understand your frustration. Sanderson’s characters’ moral discussions are, in my opinion, prompts for us to question our morals with an extreme perspective, one that we don’t usually tap into in our daily lives. It’s supposed to make you feel frustrated, confused, and a possibly little scared. If this shakes your philosophy, good; now go out and find a better one that will make sense to you, with good reasons to keep it stable.

P.S. If anyone has found what I just asked you all to look for, please tell.

 

That’s the problem his philosophy doesn’t make sense. It’s the equivalent to answering the question and receiving back there are no answer answers. Worse is contradictory if it’s correct that there are no answers then Nail is right

On 6/24/2025 at 6:16 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

I rather like this theme because I find it to be largely true in most moral circumstances, but I can see your argument. To just address your last point, I don't necessarily think it suggests you shouldn't trust your own morals; rather, I think it says you should constantly reevaluate your beliefs.

But that’s the problem what would be the point of reevaluating your beliefs if you can’t know for sure whether you’re wrong or right? There is no point because there’s no way to measure whether you’re current beliefs are wrong or whether the you could change to our right 

On 6/24/2025 at 7:13 PM, Honors ghost said:

Yes I agree with what stormcursed and singworlder have said and to follow up on what stormcursed said, personally WaT has pushed me to revaluate the way I look at the world because of the characters moral ignorance and I think your right at a base level everyone has a understanding of morals but if you ask deeper questions the morals get trickier. 
 

for example from a entirely moral standpoint if you were at a place where multiple people could die the morally correct thing to do is save as many people as possible however if a parent or loved one is there and you face the choice of saving ten people but not the loved one or saving the loved one but not the ten people you will likely choose to save the loved one even if the truly moral decision would be saving the ten people.

But even if you have this question and can’t answer it that doesn’t mean you can’t answer everything about morality completely I assume that even if you do not know the answer this question if I asked you if rape was wrong, you would give me an answer, correct. You wouldn’t say something like oh we’re all ignorant so I don’t really know.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

22 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

Yes, actually my moral code comes from Christian ethics. Most people’s does it indirectly come from Christian ethics also. I highly doubt you actually believe you are morally ignorant. If so, then what is by what right do you have to judge the rapist or murderer? Again by your own logic, they claim that doing the right thing who are you to say differently if you come from a place of ignorance

The Christian god directly commands and allows rape, murder, killing of infants, and even chattle slavery. You simply cannot say that Christianity believes in objective, unchanging, and immutable morality. It believes in following the subjective morality that they are told their God commands. We have the right to judge a rapist because from our perspective that seems like a bad thing to do. Because our goals are centered on furthering the well-being of humanity and society and the individual. If we can help convince others to adopt these same goals, they will also agree that rape is logically opposed to those goals. If your only goal is to do what your god tells you to do, then there is no reason or logic that will prevent you from killing or raping in your god's name. This has been documented time and time again throughout history.

Edit to add: How can you judge someone who believes that god told them to murder or rape? How can you know that he didn't and that what they did was actually immoral or wrong? At least with a secular humanism perspective we can measure and analyse the impact of an action and then outline reasons why it should be considered wrong or right. In your worldview, if god commands an atrocity it must still be considered moral and good.

22 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

That’s the problem his philosophy doesn’t make sense. It’s the equivalent to answering the question and receiving back there are no answer answers. Worse is contradictory if it’s correct that there are no answers then Nail is right

As I said earlier in my comment that you haven't engaged with, Nale is not right or wrong. Nale chose to outsource his morality (much like religiously motivated people do). He chose to let something else tell him what is right/wrong (the law) regardless of what he individually feels or thinks about it. His position does not allow him to question or improve the laws, only to blindly follow them. We can do better as a society by focusing on the right things - progress and well being. The things that hold us back from this are traditionalist worldviews that blindly accept what ancestors believed and taught, refusing to think critically about our morality. Brandon's books (imo) encourage us to critically analyze why we think things are good or bad. If we don't have a good reason for it, that should tell us something pretty important.

22 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

But that’s the problem what would be the point of reevaluating your beliefs if you can’t know for sure whether you’re wrong or right? There is no point because there’s no way to measure whether you’re current beliefs are wrong or whether the you could change to our right

It's not about measuring 'right' or 'wrong' since those are just labels that we each subjectively apply to reference whether it gives us positive or negative emotions. More important is measuring whether our current beliefs are TRUE (if they can be tested and measured in a way that gives us some confidence in their accuracy) and whether our actions are in accordance with our goals. We can measure the impact of actions and laws and lifestyles and everything else, and when someone's practice infringes on the rights and freedoms of another person we can determine what (if any) regulations and restrictions need to be placed on that particular action... like murder or rape.

22 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

But even if you have this question and can’t answer it that doesn’t mean you can’t answer everything about morality completely I assume that even if you do not know the answer this question if I asked you if rape was wrong, you would give me an answer, correct. You wouldn’t say something like oh we’re all ignorant so I don’t really know.

I think the problem is you are still operating under the assumption that 'good/right' and 'bad/wrong' exist outside of our subjective experience. Numbers and math and physics exist and have laws that we have had to test and experiment with in order to solve and learn - they exist on their own, independent of whether humans discover them or not.

Morality is different - it is something we describe and prescribe based specifically on our human experience. It varies based on cultures, religions, governments, and other influences throughout history. As humans have progressed to where we are today, we have collectively refined and updated and improved the general moral guidings. We've largely agreed that slavery is not good for society and that owning a person is a gross thing to do. Someone can still believe that it is good and moral and make arguments for why it should be allowed, but anyone who has the goal of promoting well-being for all will agree that slavery goes against those goals and is therefore immoral. It's not that we don't think slavery or murder or rape are bad in every single case - we do. I don't think there is a situation where slavery is the 'right' thing to do (though the Christan God would disagree with me on that). But I also acknowledge the reality that these are definitions we have come up with as a society. Slavery being bad/wrong does not exist as some transcendental guiding principle of the universe that we can measure and discover. The only way for us to come to that conclusion is to have social discourse and debate (and when necessary, a civil war) to ensure that the freedoms of all people are protected as much as possible. We don't discover eternally true morals, we just continue to make the world a better place and to create better goals that improve our lives and the lives of others in as fair a way as we possibly can.

Every situation is unique, and every person has their own rankings and priorities of what they value. That all goes into consideration when someone makes a decision to do or not do something. I was taught growing up that drinking was bad, simply because it was commanded by god in my church (through prophets who actually did still drink even after the commands were made). Now I view this differently: drinking is not inherently bad, but it has consequences and can lead to some bad outcomes. So responsible drinking is a good balance - let people choose whether they want to drink or not, but have legal punishments and processes in place for those who drink and drive or who get violent from drinking and cause harm to people. So where do the morals come into play? What is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? My former church would have said that drinking is evil and should be banned. I personally believe that it is more important for people to be able to make the individual choice of whether they want to drink or not. I think giving people freedom gives them more opportunities to better themselves and their lives and improve their well-being. See how those are different opinions and different subjective interpretations of the situation? The different values cause each side to come to a different conclusion. There is no way to channel the spirit of the universe or something and have a list of moral laws for all situation listed out to tell us what should or should not be done in any circumstances.

We have to figure it out ourselves, and that takes grappling with difficult questions, listening to multiple viewpoints and opinions, and eventually deciding what WE think is moral/immoral. But if we just outsource that entire process to 'god' or to 'the law' or to an individual person, we are doing ourselves and everyone around us a massive disservice. We are giving up our own moral responsiblity and pretending that we aren't accountable for our actions. We think that as long as we are doing what we have been told is right (even if we don't understand it) then we are not responsible for the harm we cause others along the way. That is one of the worst ways to live a life, and we see great examples of this throughout the stormlight archive, especially in WaT when things get turned on their head and we realize that the right thing to do in the situation was the thing that everyone thought was objectively wrong. Turns out acting with honor is more than just keeping an oath because you made it - it's deciding what the best action is in the situation and being willing to change your mind when you realize that your previous commitments or beliefs no longer work within the constraints of that situation.

Edited July 3, 2025 by CognitiveShadow
small clarification/edit

[mai_day she/her]

On 7/2/2025 at 12:42 PM, bmcclure7 said:

Yes, actually my moral code comes from Christian ethics.

Ok...which Christian ethics, though? There are thousands, many of them wildly contradictory. Christianity was widely cited by the Confederacy as the moral and ethical underpinning for their brutal system of skin-color-based chattel slavery, and also by John Brown and many violent abolitionists who declared it a moral good to kill the slavers to free men from bondage. It was the espoused moral framework for George Wallace and the segregationists, and also Martin Luther King Jr. and many other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. You can find the Dutch Reformed Church providing a theological support for Apartheid in South Africa, or the Liberation theology of Oscar Romero or James Cone that argues that liberation of the oppressed is the core of Christianity. You can find movements of Christian capitalists and Christian socialists, Christian dominionists and Christian anarchists, Christian pacifists and Just War Christians, feminist Christians and patriarchal Christians, Christian fascists and Christian communists, Christians who support the full affirmation of queer people in the body of Christ and Christians who advocate for imprisoning or executing queer people. 

That is a HUGE spectrum of disagreement, yet they are all basing these beliefs on the same set of scriptures. All of those groups and people truly believe that they are viewing scripture and the messages of Christ in the correct way. But how can any of them be certain that the path that they follow, the interpretation they have of the Bible, is the correct basis for morality and ethics? I know all of them would argue until they're blue in the face that their interpretation of scripture is the correct one, but in the end, that's all it is: interpretation. Which leads us back to the original problem you stated of "ignorance," because ultimately we can't be certain of the truth of what we believe. But that ignorance is not a total ignorance of "I have no idea what is right or wrong and no moral framework to base any of it on," but instead an admission of "these are my beliefs, but there are many things of which I am ignorant, and holding that in mind, I can remain open to my views being challenged or even changed entirely."

For what it's worth, I was raised Christian. I don't know exactly what I believe these days, but I've yet to find a much better rubric for assessing morality than Jesus' words in Matthew Chapter 7: "Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." It's my personal belief that the admission of ignorance is not the end of a moral framework, but the beginning.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

On 7/4/2025 at 11:51 PM, mai_day said:

It's my personal belief that the admission of ignorance is not the end of a moral framework, but the beginning.

Beautifully written!

[Duxredux he/him]

You know... another way to frame the OP statement of ignorance as a theme could be instead phrased as the importance of context. I know I'm stating the obvious, but how people act can look wildly different based on the extent that you understand the context. Rather than being afraid of screwing things up because of what I don't know, I'd rather spend my time trying to identify the right questions to understand the context and framework of what I can know for what I need right now. I don't need a one-size-fits-all answer. I need many small answers for the people and challenges in my sphere of influence.

[coolsnow7]

On 6/24/2025 at 4:31 PM, bmcclure7 said:

I mainly writing this to try to understand my own thoughts on this. I don’t really expect any replies, but if you do want to reply, that’s fine.
A core theme of a Brandon is ignorance. Seems to portray everyone as ignorant wandering around in the dark, especially about things concerning morality. But the more I read to him, the more he uses this theme. The more dissatisfied with it I become. In This last book it particularly irked me. I’ve been trying to figure out why.
 

more I think about it I think it comes down to that this even if it is true it is unbelievable from the human perspective. True, you can all say that we are all ignorant wandering in the dark, but no one really believes that at least no one I’ve met. True I’ve met people who say that they don’t actually have any moral knowledge only a moral perspective but when I actually confronted they vehemently insist that actually they KNOW murder is wrong, racism is wrong and so on.

Real ignorance it seems should lead to stressful indecision or depressing nihilism. Both of which are mind rejects on our subconscious level.

I think the reason why it particularly bothered me in this last book was because it seemed to go contrary to the theme of this book . Because if this is true then Nale is right. If it is true that everyone is coming from a place of ignorance concerning morality than the only thing you can do is trust in something beyond human. And hope that they or it is better. Well those are my thoughts take them as you will.

I just don’t understand how or why you’ve decided this is a theme. 

[hephaestus]

On 6/30/2025 at 5:06 AM, Oltux72 said:

WiFi is an established technology precisely because governments imposed the standard.

The IEEE is not a government body.

[+Oltux72 he/him]

5 hours ago, hephaestus said:

The IEEE is not a government body.

Technically true. Various governments, however, use authorities that govern the use of the radio spectrum, which in turn impose the standards.