Ivory and Morality

[Oudeis he/him]

Regarding the "excessive force" issue: that's something that's defined differently in every jurisdiction, but is usually determined on a case-by-case basis, often by a jury. However, in any jurisdiction in the US, you would be within your rights to use deadly force (aka a gun) against an assailant coming at you in close quarters with a knife.

 

...

 

Once again...the point here is that Jasnah did something that is controversial, not something that is universally acknowledged to be wrong. A lot of people seem to be missing this point.

 

I just spoke with a lawyer on this topic and a few interesting things came up.

 

First... you're the one who started this by saying, "And there's not a single legal system IRL that would consider it murder, either." If you'd like to retract that hardline statement, we can put this issue to bed and stop discussing it. However, your argument has now shifted to, well, a defense lawyer could kinda sorta claim that Jasnah had deputized herself and was making a citizen's arrest, meaning she was legally a police officer, and thereby would have been allowed to do these actions in one jurisdiction forty years ago... that's hardly a strong support of your initial statement which left very, very little wiggle room.

 

Also, please note I did not say "shoot him with a gun". I said, "empty a clip into his head." If someone's coming at you with a knife, you will almost certainly remove him as a threat with a single gunshot wound to the head, which he could still very well survive. The fourth or fifth bullet into his skull is unequivocally excessive, since it will do almost nothing to reduce his threat at that point and is clearly just an attempt on your part to make sure the man dies.

 

Also, as I explained the scenario to this lawyer, one fact came to light which throws most of the rest of this out the window. Absolutely none of this was (legally) self-defense. Jasnah was in absolutely no danger. She could have been stabbed fifty times, and the Stormlight just in her Soulcaster would have kept her alive. The next book she apparently recovers from being stabbed through the heart after another attack that should also have killed her.

 

Now, the obvious rebuttal is that she kept her powers a secret, so no jury would have found her guilty since they would have believed she was in danger. But that's not what you said. You didn't say she'd get away with it, you said the act itself wouldn't be illegal. Jasnah knew full well that Stormlight would keep her alive and that the man posed absolutely no danger to her, and she chose to kill him anyway.

 

This is the only point I'm trying to make. You've said that it would not be considered murder anywhere in the world. It was a premediated successful attempt to end a man's life when she was in absolutely no danger. That's the legal definition of murder in at least a few places.

[11thorderknight]

I just spoke with a lawyer on this topic and a few interesting things came up.

 

First... you're the one who started this by saying, "And there's not a single legal system IRL that would consider it murder, either." If you'd like to retract that hardline statement, we can put this issue to bed and stop discussing it. However, your argument has now shifted to, well, a defense lawyer could kinda sorta claim that Jasnah had deputized herself and was making a citizen's arrest, meaning she was legally a police officer, and thereby would have been allowed to do these actions in one jurisdiction forty years ago... that's hardly a strong support of your initial statement which left very, very little wiggle room.

 

Also, please note I did not say "shoot him with a gun". I said, "empty a clip into his head." If someone's coming at you with a knife, you will almost certainly remove him as a threat with a single gunshot wound to the head, which he could still very well survive. The fourth or fifth bullet into his skull is unequivocally excessive, since it will do almost nothing to reduce his threat at that point and is clearly just an attempt on your part to make sure the man dies.

 

Also, as I explained the scenario to this lawyer, one fact came to light which throws most of the rest of this out the window. Absolutely none of this was (legally) self-defense. Jasnah was in absolutely no danger. She could have been stabbed fifty times, and the Stormlight just in her Soulcaster would have kept her alive. The next book she apparently recovers from being stabbed through the heart after another attack that should also have killed her.

 

Now, the obvious rebuttal is that she kept her powers a secret, so no jury would have found her guilty since they would have believed she was in danger. But that's not what you said. You didn't say she'd get away with it, you said the act itself wouldn't be illegal. Jasnah knew full well that Stormlight would keep her alive and that the man posed absolutely no danger to her, and she chose to kill him anyway.

 

This is the only point I'm trying to make. You've said that it would not be considered murder anywhere in the world. It was a premediated successful attempt to end a man's life when she was in absolutely no danger. That's the legal definition of murder in at least a few places.

 

For purposes of clarity, let's separate Jasnah's overall actions that night into their various steps:

 

1. She walks through a seedy part of town with a recent spike in robberies/murders while conspicuously wearing expensive jewelry and appearing to be defenseless. 

 

2. She Soulcasts the first assailant into fire.

 

3. She Soulcasts the remaining assailants into crystal and fire as they're either on the ground or fleeing.

 

I will concede that actions 2 and 3 are quite different from one another, and deserve separate arguments. I did some reading on the origins of common law (which goes back at least 1000 years in medieval England), and my understanding is that, at a time when there were very few actual law enforcement officials, it was the norm for citizens to perform citizen's arrests of those they caught breaking the law. It was also quite legal for them to shoot a fleeing criminal in order to prevent their escape. This actually lasted for quite some time, well into the 19th and 20th centuries in some places (for instance, rural farm areas or the American "wild west"). My point in citing the Supreme Court case that made it illegal for police to shoot suspects that weren't likely to be dangerous was to point out how recent a development that actually is. I don't have any doubt that in medieval/renaissance times, using deadly force against a fleeing attempted-murderer would have been perfectly legal. I will also concede that you are correct in stating that, today, in most Western nations, it would be a much murkier scenario.

 

Regarding action 2, I don't think anyone could argue that it wasn't legally justified. Let's pretend that, IRL, some dude comes at you with a baseball bat. Are you saying that, since you're likely to survive an assault with a bat, you're not justified in shooting that dude? 

[Oudeis he/him]

First, I'm still in danger from the bat, even if I'm not in deathly peril. Jasnah would be, at the absolutely most, inconvenienced by his actions. Let's say someone cuts me off in traffic. It's illegal, and it affects me since I will now be that much later for whatever I am going to. Following your logic, I can now say to myself, "This man illegally shifted lanes without signalling. I am choosing to make a citizen's arrest of him. Also, he's in a car, and actively engaged in traveling away from me. Since I'm worried he's going to shift lanes again, I am fully justified in pulling out my gun and shooting him dead, because he is fleeing me." Obviously, that's ridiculous. It's also a close approximation to the scenario you suggest.

 

I fully concede that there have been times and places where her actions would be legal. In caveman times, there were no laws, and nothing was illegal. But that is not what you said to spark this conversation. You said it would not be considered murder anywhere IRL. Do you still maintain that position?

[Edgedancer he/him]

First, I'm still in danger from the bat, even if I'm not in deathly peril. Jasnah would be, at the absolutely most, inconvenienced by his actions. Let's say someone cuts me off in traffic. It's illegal, and it affects me since I will now be that much later for whatever I am going to. Following your logic, I can now say to myself, "This man illegally shifted lanes without signalling. I am choosing to make a citizen's arrest of him. Also, he's in a car, and actively engaged in traveling away from me. Since I'm worried he's going to shift lanes again, I am fully justified in pulling out my gun and shooting him dead, because he is fleeing me." Obviously, that's ridiculous. It's also a close approximation to the scenario you suggest.

 

I fully concede that there have been times and places where her actions would be legal. In caveman times, there were no laws, and nothing was illegal. But that is not what you said to spark this conversation. You said it would not be considered murder anywhere IRL. Do you still maintain that position?

To add to this, Jasnah, as far as we know, would have been completely capable of only soulcasting their weapons and maybe their shoes into fire, so they can´t harm her or run away. Sure burns may not be pleasant but a whole less lethal and clothes are probably easier to soulcast than actual people.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Edgedancer

[hoser he/him]

While I find this discussion fascinating, I am notably ignorant and will refrain from commenting.  I am drawn instead to other measures of Ivory's morality. 

 

At the time he started bonding with Jasnah, she was in the middle of arranging an assassination.  That seems morally questionable, to say the least.  I think he must have been aware of her activities and approved. 

 

Subscribing to the theory that the orders and spren on the bottom half of the surgebinding table (with female Heralds) are more Cultivation related, it seems to me that cultivation includes activities like pruning, thinning and weeding.  I expect the more Cultivation-related orders to be more pragmatic and ruthless as a result. 

[kari-no-sugata]

One of the enjoyable things about the Stormlight Archive is that it's not dominated by one viewpoint character and we get a nice mixture - in tWoK there's a nice balance between Kaladin, Dalinar and Shallan. However, I do have a minor frustration in that we don't see much of these three from other view points. In the case of Jasnah, we have one released chapter from her viewpoint (from 6 years ago) and one beta chapter - everything else is from Shallan's perspective.

 

My view of Shallan is that she is someone who will naturally tend to empathise with others: I think the main reason why she (initially) couldn't go through with the Soulcaster theft is that she had started empathising with Jasnah, who turned out to be very different to Shallan's expectations (you could say that Shallan had pre-created a mental image of Jasnah that she could justify robbing). By early WoR, Shallan's view of Jasnah is of someone "almost divine". It seems clear that Shallan's initial reaction to Jasnah killing the robbers and her current view are quite different.

 

I think for Shallan that killing others is very much a last resort and something she would prefer to avoid if at all possible - but once someone has crossed a particular threshold then she doesn't really hold back. For her, I don't think the robbers had quite crossed that threshold just yet (though they would have if Jasnah had done nothing). Putting it another way, at the times of their deaths, for Shallan those robbers were not people who deserved to die - hence her reaction.

 

For Jasnah I suspect it's something like this: the city was somewhere she was visiting. She did not have responsibilities there. However, she had became aware of a particular group of criminals doing horrible things and also that (for whatever reason) the police/guards were not doing their job. Jasnah did not have any real spare time (she's worried about the fate of the world) so didn't have the time to resolve things "properly". She also couldn't just stand by and let more crimes continue when she knew she could do something. So she was prepared to kill in advance - her perspective and thresholds are different to Shallan's.

 

I would say that Jasnah deliberately and knowingly committed vigilante justice.... and also that she only took action because the authorities did not. The problem with such actions is she is playing judge, jury and executioner - if everyone did the same it would be chaos. I'm pretty sure she understands that too.

 

But what does Ivory understand? I really have no idea at present - there's not enough information.

 

I would like to raise one point though: Jasnah does not seem to be a full Radiant, despite having about 6 years of continuous experience with Ivory - at least she says she's not. This is somewhat speculative but this does feel "slow" in comparison to the others. This is not to say that Ivory necessarily disagreed with Jasnah over the robbers but it wouldn't surprise me if they've had other issues of contention that slowed down the development of the Nahel bond.

[Edgedancer he/him]

For Jasnah I suspect it's something like this: the city was somewhere she was visiting. She did not have responsibilities there. However, she had became aware of a particular group of criminals doing horrible things and also that (for whatever reason) the police/guards were not doing their job. Jasnah did not have any real spare time (she's worried about the fate of the world) so didn't have the time to resolve things "properly". She also couldn't just stand by and let more crimes continue when she knew she could do something. So she was prepared to kill in advance - her perspective and thresholds are different to Shallan's.

 

I would say that Jasnah deliberately and knowingly committed vigilante justice.... and also that she only took action because the authorities did not. The problem with such actions is she is playing judge, jury and executioner - if everyone did the same it would be chaos. I'm pretty sure she understands that too.

You know, I always had a problem with saying she couldn´t do it "properly." This has nothing to do with the legallity and less with the act itself than what it says about her. One if not the most important statements Jasnah makes about her own character and life decisions is the whole deal about "humans don´t need god because they are inherently good, they just need the chance."

However, simply killing the muggers means that she either judges them as irredeemealy evil, directly contradicting herself, or that she murdered people she believed could be redeemed but couldn´t be bothered to put any effort into it, which also doesn´t sound like the action of someone that advocates the goodness of humankind.

Now, we could probably discuss these... inconsistencies to death but it doesn´t exactly set the best track record for the member of an organisation that requires complete adherence to a central moral code.

[Moogle]

You know, I always had a problem with saying she couldn´t do it "properly." This has nothing to do with the legallity and less with the act itself than what it says about her. One if not the most important statements Jasnah makes about her own character and life decisions is the whole deal about "humans don´t need god because they are inherently good, they just need the chance."

However, simply killing the muggers means that she either judges them as irredeemealy evil, directly contradicting herself, or that she murdered people she believed could be redeemed but couldn´t be bothered to put any effort into it, which also doesn´t sound like the action of someone that advocates the goodness of humankind.

 

This is only a problem if you read her extremely literally and with zero charity. I think you're misinterpreting her. Here's what she says:

“Must someone, some unseen thing, declare what is right for it to be right? I believe that my own morality—which answers only to my heart—is more sure and true than the morality of those who do right only because they fear retribution.”

“But that is the soul of law,” the king said, sounding confused. “If there is no punishment, there can be only chaos.”

“If there were no law, some men would do as they wish, yes,” Jasnah said. “But isn’t it remarkable that, given the chance for personal gain at the cost of others, so many people choose what is right?”

“Because they fear the Almighty.”

“No,” Jasnah said. “I think something innate in us understands that seeking the good of society is usually best for the individual as well. Humankind is noble, when we give it the chance to be. That nobility is something that exists independent of any god’s decree.”

 

Jasnah is not saying "literally every human is innately good deep down". I don't think anyone ever has said that or argued for it? It would be an odd position to hold.

 

She indicates this only applies to most people, not all, in the sentence "But isn’t it remarkable that, given the chance for personal gain at the cost of others, so many people choose what is right?". She recognizes that some men are not innately good and would leap at the chance to advance themselves as the cost of others when she uses the word 'many'. The men she killed were murderers (and possibly rapists), and I would guess have had their chance in her eyes.

 

Now, we could probably discuss these... inconsistencies to death but it doesn´t exactly set the best track record for the member of an organisation that requires complete adherence to a central moral code.

 

Only one order we know of requires strict adherence to a moral code (the Windrunners), with others like the Skybreakers seeming likely. The Lightweavers certainly don't seem to require it (so long as you stick being truthful with yourself), and given Jasnah's propensity to assassination it seems likely the Elsecallers have a very relaxed view on what is considered "wrong" as well.

 

I wonder if Elsecallers even have oaths, of if they do something like the Lightweaver's truths? Jasnah sort of doing her own thing on a whim with the murderers indicates that it wasn't an oath-required activity.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Moogle

[kari-no-sugata]

I don't see a contradiction here - they weren't merely "muggers" but people who robbed and murdered others on three occasions (whether the victims were entirely random or not is never explained). In countries with the death penalty such crimes would normally merit capital punishment.

 

btw, when I say doing things "properly", I mean trying to resolve the situation where the Watch were not investigating the murders - the "proper" thing to do is to leave law and order to the authorities or to fix the authorities if they're not doing their job. Of course, either would take time.

 

Going back to what Ivory might think another thing to consider is that spren like Ivory who have taken the choice upon themselves to bond with humans against what their fellow spren think would clearly be outliers. That doesn't necessarily make them more "aggressive" of course, though they should be more willing to take an activist/interventionist stance, which is basically what Jasnah did with the robbers.

 

Edit: Thanks for digging up that quote Moogle.

Edited January 5, 2015 by kari-no-sugata

[Oudeis he/him]

Another metric which Shallan didn't bring up to Jasnah, but did think about to herself.

 

Again, let me re-iterate that we're talking morality, which is subjective. So, I'm going to talk for a moment from the perspective of a common person on Alethkar, judging her based on what he or she thinks happens.

 

I suspect such a person would claim she was acting immorally, for one very specific reason. A lot of people, at least in the Vorin East if not all of Roshar, believe Soulcasters to be holy relics. A woman, a heretic, using one to murder, would strike them not only as immoral, but as blasphemous.

 

Please keep in mind, I'm not saying this is my view or an objectively "correct" one. In part I'm pointing out the inherent subjectivity of morality, which after all is the point of this thread, as we're trying to guess how Ivory would judge her acts of that day. In other part, I'm pointing out one specific Rosharan opinion that encapsulated Shallan's own initial reaction, as valid as any other reaction or judgement is.

[Patrick Star]

I suspect such a person would claim she was acting immorally, for one very specific reason. A lot of people, at least in the Vorin East if not all of Roshar, believe Soulcasters to be holy relics. A woman, a heretic, using one to murder, would strike them not only as immoral, but as blasphemous.

 

Then she'll just soulcast the dissenters as well.  After all, Kaladin was going to be executed because he called Amaram a murderer, so Jasnah would be in the green.

 

Besides, this is the same government that felt that putting Roshone in charge of a rural town was ample punishment for murder.  Even if Jasnah was found guilty, they'd probably sentence her to living near a library, or something.

[11thorderknight]

Only one order we know of requires strict adherence to a moral code (the Windrunners), with others like the Skybreakers seeming likely. The Lightweavers certainly don't seem to require it (so long as you stick being truthful with yourself), and given Jasnah's propensity to assassination it seems likely the Elsecallers have a very relaxed view on what is considered "wrong" as well.

 

I wonder if Elsecallers even have oaths, of if they do something like the Lightweaver's truths? Jasnah sort of doing her own thing on a whim with the murderers indicates that it wasn't an oath-required activity.

 

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. We know the Orders are different from one another, sometimes very much so. We know that Syl seems to not thing very highly of Cryptics, which are on the opposite end of the Radiant diagram from the Windrunners. We also know that the Skybreakers seem to be the most black-and-white of the orders. Guess who's their opposite on the diagram? I'll bet the Elsecallers and their spren have the most nuanced and situationally-specific view of what's honorable.