How do you define 'honorable'?

[Hoid Is Dead]

Just butting in! Based on Syl's expression in the chasm when Kaladin wants to end Amaram, I quote.

Kal : "It's justice, Syl, you tell me that I need to protect. If I kill him, that's what I'm doing! Protecting people etc. etc."

Syl : "I don't like how you get, when you think about him. You stop being you. etc."

 

Based on my assumptions, Syl is attracted to Kaladin because he is a son of honor and Syl is an Honor spren (obviously), Syl said that Kaladin stops being him (honorable), and that Syl disapproves of Kaladin's decisions (killing Amaram). Syl disapproves because the act is presumably not honorable. 

 

So my conclusion, honor is doing what you have to do, in the "right" way. Going into Adolin's murder, he acts based on his feelings, but is that right? Well for some it is, because Sadeas deserve to die, but based on their Alethi Codes of War, RESTRAINT, Adolin clearly violates this because he acted based on his anger.

 

"Right Way" - based on others perspective, in this case, Alethi morals.

 

So 'honorable' for me, is doing what is right, in the right place at the right time.

[Jit he/him]

As I was reading this topic a quote from Hamlet kept on going through my head.

"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

When I consider that we are looking into a fictional world, and by WoB that perception plays an important role in the world at least with the magic, it seems kinda difficult to see if that culture and world would find what happened honourable or not.

If we are taking about our world then I believe it was not an honourable action but for Roshar it maybe.

(Added reason for my opinion in the edit)

The reason why I don't think Adolins actions where honourable is because, I think there are only two reasons where murder is acceptable. If there is an immediate risk/danger to ones life or of others. Sadeas was a danger to Adolin and his family but was not an immediate danger and he could have been subdued by other means. They nearly did it with the duel and Dalinar has shown to be more politically savvy then people have given him credit.

Sorry I had edit the post was sleepy when I wrote the original post and didn't explain my reasoning.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Jit

[Guest]

Just butting in! Based on Syl's expression in the chasm when Kaladin wants to end Amaram, I quote.

Kal : "It's justice, Syl, you tell me that I need to protect. If I kill him, that's what I'm doing! Protecting people etc. etc."

Syl : "I don't like how you get, when you think about him. You stop being you. etc."

 

Based on my assumptions, Syl is attracted to Kaladin because he is a son of honor and Syl is an Honor spren (obviously), Syl said that Kaladin stops being him (honorable), and that Syl disapproves of Kaladin's decisions (killing Amaram). Syl disapproves because the act is presumably not honorable. 

 

So my conclusion, honor is doing what you have to do, in the "right" way. Going into Adolin's murder, he acts based on his feelings, but is that right? Well for some it is, because Sadeas deserve to die, but based on their Alethi Codes of War, RESTRAINT, Adolin clearly violates this because he acted based on his anger.

 

"Right Way" - based on others perspective, in this case, Alethi morals.

 

So 'honorable' for me, is doing what is right, in the right place at the right time.

 

Syl disapproves because Kaladin wants to kill Amaram out of revenge. Amaram is not harming anyone, he is not a direct threat. There is no oath that allows him to just kill Amaram. Kaladin uses the argument Amaram would end up killing more people, but he can't justify it.

 

Sadeas is a different matter. He was harming people and he had make the clear threat he would keep on doing so. It is not like Amaram whom Kaladin presumes is dangerous. He does not know that, he's had bad experience with him, but he can't extrapolate to think he still presents a threat, not while remaining true to his oaths. Sadeas has stated his intentions without the inch of a doubt.

 

Adolin acted on his feelings, but by doing so, he remain true to himself. I felt he needed his strong emotional response to propel himself through it. Too much was at stakes. However, I do think it was the right thing for Adolin to do, but it would have been wrong for Dalinar or Kaladin to do the same.

[Hoid Is Dead]

Syl disapproves because Kaladin wants to kill Amaram out of revenge. 

 

Sadeas is a different matter. He was harming people and he had make the clear threat he would keep on doing so. It is not like Amaram whom Kaladin presumes is dangerous. He does not know that, he's had bad experience with him, but he can't extrapolate to think he still presents a threat, not while remaining true to his oaths. Sadeas has stated his intentions without the inch of a doubt.

 

Adolin acted on his feelings, but by doing so, he remain true to himself. I felt he needed his strong emotional response to propel himself through it. Too much was at stakes. However, I do think it was the right thing for Adolin to do, but it would have been wrong for Dalinar or Kaladin to do the same.

 

But is getting revenge by assassinating Amaram honorable? 

I agree with you in the Adolin part but he really should not have hide the fact that he killed Sadeas.

[Guest]

But is getting revenge by assassinating Amaram honorable? 

I agree with you in the Adolin part but he really should not have hide the fact that he killed Sadeas.

 

Nope. Revenge is never honorable. Adolin did not kill Sadeas out of revenge, but out of love for his father and fear for his family. Not revenge though.

[kaellok he/him]

Nope. Revenge is never honorable. Adolin did not kill Sadeas out of revenge, but out of love for his father and fear for his family. Not revenge though.

I think that's an important point that may very easily be missed.  Especially since a large part of the fear is based in what Sadeas did in the past, which was horrible and evil.  Sadeas point-blank said that he was going to do similar things again, and Adolin decided he'd had enough.  He killed the mad dog before it could infect others with its rabies.

 

 

The reason why I don't think Adolins actions where honourable is because, I think there are only two reasons where murder is acceptable. If there is an immediate risk/danger to ones life or of others. Sadeas was a danger to Adolin and his family but was not an immediate danger and he could have been subdued by other means. They nearly did it with the duel and Dalinar has shown to be more politically savvy then people have given him credit.

I find the bolded part of your post that I have quoted fascinating, because I disagree strongly.  I mean, I'm assuming that by murder you mean killing, since murder is just a legal definition, and in most cases (at least for modern nations) killing someone that poses an immediate risk to yourself or others isn't murder.  Anyway. 

 

Why is it not honorable to kill someone who has done horrific evil in the past, who says they will do horrific evil in the future (who are gleefully bragging about their plans, even), just because they don't pose a threat to you or others at that moment in time?  I truly do not understand this, and would welcome someone who does who can explain.  It seems to me that if you have the chance to stop a murderer before they can murder again, and you don't, you share some of the blame for anyone else they kill (not all, far from it.  Only a little.  But you should sure as hell have trouble sleeping at night because you had the opportunity to stop a monster, and chose not to.)

[galendo]

Honour has different meanings from one area to another as well as from different periods in history. The samurai ideal of honour is very different to the Teutonic, for example. 

 

Culturally speaking, honour can be defined loosely as "what is good for the tribe." Again, this is only a very loose description.

 

...

 

Modern definitions of honour cannot be applied to historical events. By historical standards almost nobody now has any honour anyway. By modern standards, our history was filled with murderous psychopaths.

 

Stopping now, could go on for days.

Great post, and welcome to the boards!

 

You make a good point that honor is often viewed through a cultural lens, and some things that were considered honorable in the past would be considered barbaric today.  Dueling comes to mind as an example.  If my understanding of history is correct, there was a time when it was considered honorable for two men to resolve their differences by shooting at one another.  It seems crazy, wasteful, and, incidentally, not very honorable at all by modern standards.

 

I'm having difficulty coming up with a definition of honor that encompasses dueling, though.  It doesn't fit my "for a greater cause" condition very well (my understanding was that duels were sometimes fought over relatively trival matters -- though I admit it's possible that what would be seen as trivial today would have been quite serious at the time.  I'm not enough of a history buff to know for sure), and it doesn't seem to fit your "what's good for the tribe" definition, either.  And yet it was serious enough at the time for people to die for.

 

More thinking needs to be done on this matter.

 

 

I don't understand why giving a gift is merely generous while giving to a charity is honorable on top of being generous. I understand giving a gift is not honorable, but a charity? 

 

I think an action can be defined as honorable is your word is imply. For instance, when you give to a charity, you are not only given money, you are giving your word you would. So that's what honorable, the fact your word is in play much more than the money. The delay does in between your word and your action does not matter so much as long as it is reasonable. If you need years to hold onto your word, you are still being honorable.

 

I would say that when giving to a charity you are sacrificing for a cause you believe in.  Doing the "right" thing, in other words, at personal cost.  That's what makes it honorable.  Anyone can give lip service to, say, how terrible it is that people are starving to death in Africa -- we can all agree that it's a terrible situation -- but only a few donate their time or money to help fix the problem.  Honor is about walking the walk despite the cost to yourself.  If I can borrow from Man from La Mancha: "To fight the unbeatable foe / ... / To fight for the right, without question or pause / To be willing to march into Hell for a Heavenly cause".

 

You still have not answered my original question: "What should have Adolin done to remain honorable given the situation at hand?".

 

...

 

I am starting to think Adolin was given a very poor set of cards as no matter what he did, he was wrong.

I'm not sure I have a good answer for that question.  Like you said, Adolin was in a pretty awkward situation, where no choice he made would have been perfect.  The smart thing might have been to kill Sadeas, but there were more honorable approaches to the problem.  At the very least, it would have been less dishonorable to give Sadeas fair warning.  Stupid, sure, and Adolin would likely have died if he had -- but that's not the point.  Honor isn't about being smart, it's about being honorable.

 

There are a couple of death rattles that come to mind that seem somewhat related:

I hold the suckling child in my hands, a knife at his throat, and know that all who live wish me to let the blade slip. Spill its blood upon the ground, over my hands, and with it gain us further breath to draw.

and

So the night will reign, for the choice of honor is life...

Now maybe I'm completely off here and the next book will prove that these refer to completely different things, but the first quote seems to be referring to someone in a position similar to Adolin's, where the expedient thing is to murder someone, because it will save lots of lives.  But the honorable choice, according to the second one, is not to do so, even though the consequences are terrible.  Personally I'm kind of hoping/expecting that this all plays out at the end of the fifth book as a sort of downer ending to the first half of the series.  That's how I'd do it, at least.

 

...But the point I was making is that murder isn't honorable, even if would potentially save lives.  Expedient, useful, maybe even good in some cases, but not honorable.

[Jit he/him]

Yes you are right Kaellok I did mean kill and not murder thank you.

Why is it not honorable to kill someone who has done horrific evil in the past, who says they will do horrific evil in the future (who are gleefully bragging about their plans, even), just because they don't pose a threat to you or others at that moment in time?  I truly do not understand this, and would welcome someone who does who can explain.  It seems to me that if you have the chance to stop a murderer before they can murder again, and you don't, you share some of the blame for anyone else they kill (not all, far from it.  Only a little.  But you should sure as hell have trouble sleeping at night because you had the opportunity to stop a monster, and chose not to.)

Well the first point is that according to the culture what Sadeas did may not be considered as evil as you and I may consider it.

“He had abandoned Dalinar, but by Alethi standards, that was another thing entirely. He didn’t want to risk the kingdom either.”

Excerpt From: Brandon, Sanderson. “The Stormlight Archive 1 - The Way of Kings.”

What Sadeas says at the end is just slender to turn the people against him, and that he will try to take what Dalinar has not a great evil, is it likely to result in many deaths maybe we don't know. I see what Adolin did as akin to a child having a tantrum because someone said something bad about his daddy, and then hides the fact that he broke the toy by hiding in the garden. I know it's a lot more serious then that but it was an emotional act. It's not like Sadeas was hiding halfway around world and this was the only time he would have to act. And like I said before they nearly did get what they wanted after the dual what's to say they wouldn't be able to do it again. As such I maintain that what Adolin did was not honourable.

[Guest]

What Sadeas says at the end is just slender to turn the people against him, and that he will try to take what Dalinar has not a great evil, is it likely to result in many deaths maybe we don't know. I see what Adolin did as akin to a child having a tantrum because someone said something bad about his daddy, and then hides the fact that he broke the toy by hiding in the garden. I know it's a lot more serious then that but it was an emotional act. It's not like Sadeas was hiding halfway around world and this was the only time he would have to act. And like I said before they nearly did get what they wanted after the dual what's to say they wouldn't be able to do it again. As such I maintain that what Adolin did was not honourable.

 

OK. I seriously have so many issues with this post I hardly know where to start.

If I understand you properly you are comparing Adolin snapping at Sadeas to a child having a tantrum because he was denied his favorite toy? The two do not even begin to compare... First of, children tend to pull out tantrums when they are denied a non-essential items they spontaneously see as mightily important.

For instance, the other day, I walked into a book store with my 5 years old daughter with the intended purpose to buy a new cooking book. The intent had been made clear to the child: "We are here to buy mommy's cooking book and nothing else. Do you understand?". The child vigorously answered that yes, she understood. However, as we walked into the store, her eyes automatically fell onto this heart shape pink handbag with sparkles on it...  Of course, despite my clear rules: she wanted it. I said no and I reinforced the fact we agreed there would be no buying other than the cooking book. She got angry because me, the evil parent, has just refused to acknowledge her spontaneous "need" for a handbag. That's a tantrum. A crisis a child makes in hope to convince his parents to buy him some gadget he just saw or to attempt to loosen some rules such as "Go take your bath.". All in all, children pull out tantrums to express their disagreement in front of parental authority and believe, in all the naivety of childhood, that if they scream loud enough, they may get their wish. Children are extremely good at this, but most grow out of it as they realized how childish this behavior is.

 

Adolin's reaction to Sadeas is not a tantrum. Sadeas is not a toy Adolin broken then hid: Sadeas is a mass murderer who would be known as a terrorist and hunted in every country had he lived in our world, but is fortunate enough to live in one where his actions are not directly contradicting the law. In other words, as long as he does not confess, they can't pin him down for betrayal and murder. Sadeas did not just speak badly about Dalinar: he blatantly said he would do everything he could to keep on undermining him and he would not back down, ever. He would not shy away from launching open war and he would not rest until Dalinar is dead. I don't know about you, but for my part, if someone insults or worst threatens my closed-ones, I riposte and it would never come into my mind to call it a tantrum. Respect and well-being of my closed-ones is not a gadget I can dispose of once I'm done or some rule I wish I could bend: they are crucial and essential. 

Therefore, the life of Dalinar is not a toy Adolin desires out of childish glee. He is the father he loves. He also happen to be his commanding officer, his highprince and a stormingly important man. Adolin is appropriately justified to be angry at Sadeas's words. He is justified to want to end it, but he is powerless to do so. The ploy they used to try to snare Sadeas nearly cost Adolin his life and now Sadeas is aware of it: he won't allow himself to be trapped in such way again. The Alethi laws prevent Adolin from directly dueling Sadeas unless there's a boon associated to it. It was their only shot to deal with the man in a legal manner.

Many people always go back to the fact Adolin's actions were emotional. Of course they were, without his strong emotional response: he would have never acted. Emotions often are the catalyst required to move from inaction to action. They propel you. It is anger who often prompts the quiet bystander to stand to bullies picking on another kid which is exactly what Adolin has repetitively been doing in both books.

Adolin sees a prostitude being molested? He intervenes.

Adolin sees Kaladin being imprisoned unjustly? He intervenes.

Adolin always take direct action when confronted with moral injustice. He does not do it for honor. Adolin tells us what honor means to him: a one on one fight between two opponents of equal strength. Basically, dueling. This is where his honor lay, but when he sees bullies, it is not honor who speaks through his actions, but morality, empathy which tells him he is just as guilty as the culprits if he walks away. Empathy which also tells him morality supersede the law. I believe those were the teachings his mother ingrained in him as a child and up until the Sadeas incident, Adolin managed to jungle with his inner self and Dalinar's expectations in a more harmonious way.

Now he's found his threshold. The threshold between the man Dalinar wants him to be and the man he truly is. He has progressively started to become this man again. He took his first step when when he jailed himself for Kaladin. He broke the king's decree: for a darkeye. Sadeas was another step, more drastic, more dramatic, but the man needed to die. Adolin could not walk away, watch the horrors of Sadeas tyranny unfold and still look at himself in the mirror while being proud. The second he walks way, each drop of blood Sadeas spills is on his hands. This is what matters to him: not to stay idle in front of injustice and crime. To not be the quiet bystander even if actions sometimes demand law breaking, so long as it is morally right. To care about others in an active way, to put his strength in front of others to protect them from abuse, no matter who they are, no matter how low they rank.

 

It is exactly what Adolin's little story arc has been about for two books: becoming his own man and not simply Dalinar's tool or younger replica. 

Thus, without his anger, Adolin is just another idle bystander who watches, but does nothing. Emotions are his propeller, his motor. However, by killing Sadeas, Adolin goes so violently against the law and his beloved father's codes his immediate reaction is one of shock. Shock, I'd like to point out, is a lesser and temporary form of PTSD. We keep on insisting how Kaladin needs to be cut some slack due to his traumatic past. Well, at that specific point in time, Adolin is going through shock from having committed a crime, from having broken the law in such a violent way and whereas he was not ready to let Sadeas idly stroll away after having made his confession: he was not ready either to label himself as a criminal. His entire actions following the deed are numb, dull and surprisingly emotionless. He should be panicking, be riled with stress as this how he has dealt with unexpected situations before, but no. He is quite blend, which is exactly what shock does to you: it makes you numb, dazed, confused. That being said, I disagree with the notion Adolin hiding his deed is akin to a angry child who hid its broken toy. It does not compare. He should not have done it, he should have come clean, but his mind won't let him just as Kaladin's mind won't allow him to turn the page on his past. However, unlike Kaladin, Adolin's shock is likely temporary and he'll eventually walk out of it after a day or two.

 

So to go back to the original question, was it honorable? I am not sure the action can fit within the definition of honorable, but it was right. To me, that is more than enough. 

 

Edit: Spelling... sorry I am terrible at verb tenses. They all sound the same in my head and most of my "English writing skills" come from osmosis...

Edited September 12, 2015 by maxal

[Jimmy he/him]

Great post, and welcome to the boards!

 

You make a good point that honor is often viewed through a cultural lens, and some things that were considered honorable in the past would be considered barbaric today.  Dueling comes to mind as an example.  If my understanding of history is correct, there was a time when it was considered honorable for two men to resolve their differences by shooting at one another.  It seems crazy, wasteful, and, incidentally, not very honorable at all by modern standards.

 

I'm having difficulty coming up with a definition of honor that encompasses dueling, though.  It doesn't fit my "for a greater cause" condition very well (my understanding was that duels were sometimes fought over relatively trival matters -- though I admit it's possible that what would be seen as trivial today would have been quite serious at the time.  I'm not enough of a history buff to know for sure), and it doesn't seem to fit your "what's good for the tribe" definition, either.  And yet it was serious enough at the time for people to die for.

 

More thinking needs to be done on this matter.

 

I've rewritten this post a number of times because I'd like to answer without excessive rambling or accidentally giving offence. Not sure how I went with that. 

 

Duelling was never done over trivial matters to the people involved. When honour determined your lifespan and the safety of your children, any affront was a deadly one and needed to be answered. Victorian Era duelling was usually done by the nobility who were never in danger of having their family wiped out. Even then the duellists were given every chance to back out and save face without injury. The judge would nearly beg both parties to settle things peaceably. 

 

In older times though a duel between leaders of armies would save a lot of lives and greatly enhance the honour of the person who avoided being chopped up into tiny bits. There is no greater honour than to defend your tribe. Maybe that is why honour has been so diluted from it's source. So few are ever in the position where they need to defend the tribe yet everyone want's to think of themselves as honourable. 

 

I think it might be the word tribe that causes confusion here. A nation is not and cannot ever be a tribe. It's simply too big and diverse. Diversity and distance causes people to lose loyalty. Does anyone feel the same all consuming devotion to their nation as they do to their family? A tribe is your family and close friends. Rarely more than a few hundred people. Certainly not millions. The human brain simply cannot process numbers that big, let alone care for each and every single one of the millions.