Those who protect by taking lives

[Azurentz]

The conversation between Lirin and Kaladin goes as is: 

 

“There are two kinds of people in this world, son. Those who save lives, and those who take lives."

"And what of those who protect and defend? Those who save lives by taking lives?"
"That's like trying to stop a storm by blowing harder. Ridiculous. You can't protect by killing.”

 

However, all points from the book point to Kaladin's original statement. Many scene show him killing to protect those he loved so why does Brandon Sanderson put this line in the book? To show Lirin's ignorance? Also, if killing someone is the results in protecting someone, a life is sacrificed to save another life. That follows the rules of equivalent exchange, meaning nobody gets anything. 

 

[king of nowhere]

Lirin is a surgeon. he does not protect people by killling other people. actually, in civilian life, the instances where killing to protect actually works are exceedingly rare. basically, if someone needs to be killed to protect someone else, then it means the situation already went down the drain. it means there was some big failure already. a failure at diplomacy, so that a war happened. a failure at educating, causing a kid to grow into a hardened criminal. If you must resort to killling to protect, someone already screwed up big time with the protecting business.

 

And by the way, you may notice that for all his selfless protecting, kaladin didn't really save lives in the big picture. he saved his soldiers by killing enemy soldiers; still people died. probably, more people died because of kaladin proteting his small unit than would have died otherwise.

 

So, Lirin has a point. unfortunately, the desolation does qualify as "already went down the drain".

[Guest]

I have to agree with king of nowhere.

 

Lirin has dedicated his life to care for other people, to preserve life. In that optic, he prohibits any open conflict resulting into people being injured, no matter which side of the fence they stands. Lirin does not care of a conflict is warranted or not: he cares about human life. We could argue this is a flawed vision of life as it happens war can be warranted, but the sad truth is it hardly ever is. The war they currently fight on the borders of the Sadeas princedom is petty. People are dying just so another Highprince may assess his claim on a few lands. It is beyond ridiculous. Lirin, however, was too passive. His rejection of open conflict led to him being walked on and taken for a fool...

 

Kaladin, however, has made it his motto to kill in order to protect, in other words, if you are attacking his people, even if you are warranted, he'll kill you. The best example of this would be Moash would was protected by Kaladin despite being a traitor. Basically, during both books, Kaladin has essentially targeted a group of people he wished to protect and he had deployed his best strategies to ensure they would survive. In doing so, he has, incidentally, caused the death of more people, just not HIS people. The side-carry is a brilliant example: he has protected his squad, but the death toll in the army was higher because of it. People died because of his decision, just not people he cared for, so he was fine with it. He was not set to protect them. So essentially, the Windrunners are heavily flawed. They strive to protect, but in doing so they get extremely focus on the people falling within their protective aura to the point where they may end up causing more deaths.

 

This example illustrates why not all Radiants are Windrunners and why there are 10 orders. They are meant to balance each other.

[mirahound she/her]

Something I think Sanderson does really well in all of his books is to portray different points of view without necessarily picking one as being better than another. Every character has their faults, as well as their points. From what I've seen, I don't think he actually picks one viewpoint over another here. He merely presents them and allows his readers to draw their own conclusions. Personally, what I take from this is that, in a perfect world, there would never be a need to kill in order to protect. However, as they - and we - live in a highly imperfect world, there will always be people who will attack the innocent, and who need to be stopped.

[Ari he/him]

Lirin is a pacifist. He believes that violence is always immoral, and doesn't solve any problems.

Kaladin believes in a bit more of a nuanced worldview, where there is room for violence in order to protect. I think under Syl's influence, he's coming towards a worldview I hold that's somewhere between "Just War", where it's sometimes okay to be the aggressor, and pacifism, where it's never okay to even defend yourself. This is known as "pacificism," or thinking violence is unnecessary and aggression is immoral, but being okay with defending yourself or others when you can't negotiate reasonably with an aggressor.

 

Brandon presents the debate between these two views well, as Mirahound alludes to in discussing his philosophy on writing about political or moral debates. I think Syl's influence might actually help Kaladin come closer to common ground with his father, if he manages their reunion carefully. But we'll wait and see on that front!

 

edit: While I don't agree with Lirin entirely, I will note that we should all have enormous personal respect for true pacifists, who believe so strongly in non-violence that they wouldn't even use violence defend themselves. (They might run away, or say, wear armour or a bulletproof vest, but they'd never use violence as a defense) That takes extraordinary courage in a dangerous situation.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Ari

[Charononus]

I've wondered how much of Lirin was influenced by Brandon finishing WoT and the Tuatha'an.

[Titan Arum]

Kaladin, however, has made it his motto to kill in order to protect, in other words, if you are attacking his people, even if you are warranted, he'll kill you. The best example of this would be Moash would was protected by Kaladin despite being a traitor. Basically, during both books, Kaladin has essentially targeted a group of people he wished to protect and he had deployed his best strategies to ensure they would survive. In doing so, he has, incidentally, caused the death of more people, just not HIS people. The side-carry is a brilliant example: he has protected his squad, but the death toll in the army was higher because of it. People died because of his decision, just not people he cared for, so he was fine with it. He was not set to protect them. So essentially, the Windrunners are heavily flawed. They strive to protect, but in doing so they get extremely focus on the people falling within their protective aura to the point where they may end up causing more deaths.

Maxal, your example about Kaladin and the side-carry forgets several key things after the fact. Kaladin came up with his idea to protect his squad, yes, and did not think about the implications to the broader army as a whole. But the second he realized that his scheme, while successfully protecting Bridge 4, was causing the death of many others, he immediately regretted the implications this caused. He saw that he lost the battle for the army and probably caused more death than otherwise would have occurred. After that, he did not use the maneuver again, even if it saved his people. He learned from this mistake. 

 

Kaladin's one major flaw, as you noted, is that his focus for protection is rather narrow when he's planning how to protect those he cares about. However, once he does realize the cost to others he usually changes course and tries to come up with a new plan. He continues to grow from his mistakes and his flaws. As further proof, we see that once he gets past wanting to protect Moash and Bridge 4, he finally concludes that he has to protect Elhokar, even if he does't agree with it in his soul. He realizes it's his duty and then spoke the third oath of the Windrunners:

I will even protect those I hate, so long as it is right.

 

[king of nowhere]

 

Maxal, your example about Kaladin and the side-carry forgets several key things after the fact. Kaladin came up with his idea to protect his squad, yes, and did not think about the implications to the broader army as a whole. But the second he realized that his scheme, while successfully protecting Bridge 4, was causing the death of many others, he immediately regretted the implications this caused. He saw that he lost the battle for the army and probably caused more death than otherwise would have occurred. After that, he did not use the maneuver again, even if it saved his people.

 

no, what he did was using his windrunner powers to protect his people. which caused the listeners to panic, which caused them to become voidbringer as they desperately seeked a way out.

 

yes, i know, it's not a perfect correlation, and it probably would have happened anyway. still, a strong case of kaladin's attempt to protect by kill always causing more strife can be made.

 

by the way, we don't know exactly how pacifist lirin is. just because he told his son that he would not be saving lives by becoming a soldier (and figthing in pointless border skirmishes) or by going vigilante-mod, doesn't mean that he does not believe in self defence or that kind of stuff.

[Titan Arum]

king of nowhere...in a world where Parshendi are not human, why would humans fighting them for revenge be worried about harming them? I don't understand your point, because they're at war. War is inherently strife. War inherently causes harm. 

 

Furthermore, Kaladin (and I assume the vast majority of people on Roshar) did not realize that using Stormlight to fight the Parshendi would push the Parshendi to Voidbringer ways. Also, it appears that Venli was looking for the forms of power secretly before all of this happened, so I don't agree with your leaps in logic. 

[DreamEternal]

king of nowhere...in a world where Parshendi are not human, why would humans fighting them for revenge be worried about harming them?

That is the problem Lirin saw and Kaladin didn't. Lirin values all life and believes seeing a war for vengeance, or any war, as justified, as ridiculous. One who valued all life and looked impartialy at the final battle in WoK would never think Kaladin was unambinguously right in saving the Kholins. There is nothing noble about killing parshendi to save humans, both are people and both are waging a war that was as far as it was possible to know, meaningless.

Indeed, the only reason we, readers, know it was the best choice to save the Kholins is because we know Dalinar would be of extreme importance to what is to come, and could be the one who redeemed Alethkar.

[Stormgate he/him]

In WoR, Shallan notices that the contradictions in people are what make them real. Jasnah, the dedicated scholar, strong, immovable, but also exhausted. In that way, Kaladin is a contradiction. He protects, he heals, then causes the very wounds that, in another circumstance, he would heal. 

[mirahound she/her]

That is the problem Lirin saw and Kaladin didn't. Lirin values all life and believes seeing a war for vengeance, or any war, as justified, as ridiculous. One who valued all life and looked impartialy at the final battle in WoK would never think Kaladin was unambinguously right in saving the Kholins. There is nothing noble about killing parshendi to save humans, both are people and both are waging a war that was as far as it was possible to know, meaningless.

Indeed, the only reason we, readers, know it was the best choice to save the Kholins is because we know Dalinar would be of extreme importance to what is to come, and could be the one who redeemed Alethkar.

Ehm, I dunno. I think something Brandon is really good at showing is the tragedy of war. He acknowledges that this entire war has been a horrendous waste of life, both in Dalinar's and Kaladin's perspectives. However, at the point where Kaladin did step in and rescue Dalinar's troops, all hope of diplomacy had broken down. Those soldiers had no other options; if he hadn't stepped in and killed those Parshendi that had the upper hand and no intention of showing mercy, even more lives would have been lost. The necessity was tragic, but I can't say that the action itself was.

[Charononus]

Ehm, I dunno. I think something Brandon is really good at showing is the tragedy of war. He acknowledges that this entire war has been a horrendous waste of life, both in Dalinar's and Kaladin's perspectives. However, at the point where Kaladin did step in and rescue Dalinar's troops, all hope of diplomacy had broken down. Those soldiers had no other options; if he hadn't stepped in and killed those Parshendi that had the upper hand and no intention of showing mercy, even more lives would have been lost. The necessity was tragic, but I can't say that the action itself was.

From a pacifist point of view though.  You are still killing intelligent life.  The disregard for life other than human is part of the problem with our real life human culture that highlights one of the similarities between us and the Alethi.  In all honesty,  we aren't much different than the Alethi in many respects.

[DreamEternal]

Ehm, I dunno. I think something Brandon is really good at showing is the tragedy of war. He acknowledges that this entire war has been a horrendous waste of life, both in Dalinar's and Kaladin's perspectives. However, at the point where Kaladin did step in and rescue Dalinar's troops, all hope of diplomacy had broken down. Those soldiers had no other options; if he hadn't stepped in and killed those Parshendi that had the upper hand and no intention of showing mercy, even more lives would have been lost. The necessity was tragic, but I can't say that the action itself was.

Again, you are ignoring that:

1) In the end he killed parshendi, and their lives matter as much as alethi lifes.

2) As ironic as it may be, as far as we know if the battle had run its course Eshonai would have a chance to talk to Dalinar, the remaining humans would most likely be spared, and the peace negotiations would happen earlier and without stormform getting in the way.

All in all, the situation is a lot grayer than most think.

Edited November 4, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[An evil 545lighteyes he/him]

 Basically, during both books, Kaladin has essentially targeted a group of people he wished to protect and he had deployed his best strategies to ensure they would survive. In doing so, he has, incidentally, caused the death of more people, just not HIS people. The side-carry is a brilliant example: he has protected his squad, but the death toll in the army was higher because of it. People died because of his decision, just not people he cared for, so he was fine with it. He was not set to protect them. So essentially, the Windrunners are heavily flawed. They strive to protect, but in doing so they get extremely focus on the people falling within their protective aura to the point where they may end up causing more deaths.

 

This example illustrates why not all Radiants are Windrunners and why there are 10 orders. They are meant to balance each other.

I do not agree with your portrayal of the side carry as wrong. It caused loss of life for the soldiers, but it saved lives of the people that were forced to be there against their will. There were good people that died but I take the side of the slaves.

[natc]

I do not agree with your portrayal of the side carry as wrong. It caused loss of life for the soldiers, but it saved lives of the people that were forced to be there against their will. There were good people that died but I take the side of the slaves.

Several other crews tried to copy them and fumbled the bridge. Some were probably halfway to Damnation by the end of it if not already there. There's no way they weren't being shot at.

And let's be honest, the prior trend of death tolls for Bridge Four under Kaladin has not been all that high already.

[Charononus]

I do not agree with your portrayal of the side carry as wrong. It caused loss of life for the soldiers, but it saved lives of the people that were forced to be there against their will. There were good people that died but I take the side of the slaves.

Actually the Parshendi focus fired other bridge crews because they weren't able to hit Bridge 4.  Since bridge 4 was out in front other bridge crews saw the side carry and tried to do it.  However they hadn't practiced it and were slow and uncoordinated with it.  This lead to them getting focus fired and killed as well.  I think it was said that only a few bridges made it to the chasm,  instead of only a few bridges falling.  That means the side carry killed many many bridgemen,  just not from bridge four.

[king of nowhere]

I do not agree with your portrayal of the side carry as wrong. It caused loss of life for the soldiers, but it saved lives of the people that were forced to be there against their will. There were good people that died but I take the side of the slaves.

how would "being there against their will" make the bridgemen any different from the others?

 

Last i checked, in that battle took part soldiers that were conscripted against their will, soldiers who enrolled because they had to eat, and soldiers who enrollled because they were tricked with bogus about honor and the principles of vorinism, which we know being false and being a corruption of the original story. add there parshendi soldiers who technically volunteered, but only because they needed the gemhearts to eat, and would have gladly avoided the alethi if they could.

In fact, in every kind of battle, you can generally split most of the participants in people who are there agianst their will, and people who think they are doing their duty but would much rather their duty asked something different from them. Plus a smattering of people who do it for the pay, although technically you can count them under "duty" - only duty towards their working contract instead of duty towards a country or an ideal. the people who actually want to be in a battle are a tiny, tiny minority - and for most of them you can make the arguments that they must have a mental illness of some kind or are terminally stupid at the least.

 

Yes, I agree that taking some slaves and forcing them to run unarmored against archers at point blank is a real nasty thing, but i find the distinction between those who are there by will or not to be mostly a matters of semantics.

[mirahound she/her]

I think we've forgotten something: Kaladin specifically notes that using the side-carry, and all its consequences, was a mistake. 

[Jondesu he/him]

Don't forget Kaladin immediately regretted and realized the side carry was wrong once he saw the impact.  It's probably safe to say that as a soldier, Kaladin regretted the deaths of both the other bridgemen and of the (dark-eyed) soldiers that were affected by what he unthinkingly caused.  It was a mistake, and one he wouldn't have caused had he realized the impact it would have, despite it saving his crew's lives.

 

jW

[king of nowhere]

Don't forget Kaladin immediately regretted and realized the side carry was wrong once he saw the impact.  It's probably safe to say that as a soldier, Kaladin regretted the deaths of both the other bridgemen and of the (dark-eyed) soldiers that were affected by what he unthinkingly caused.  It was a mistake, and one he wouldn't have caused had he realized the impact it would have, despite it saving his crew's lives.

 

jW

yes, it was aknowledged.

but that brings out another big problem with killing to protect, which is, you do not have all the information, you can be wrong. So, if you do not try to kill, and it is a mistake, and people die for it, people have died. If you kill to protect, and it was a mistake, people die for it, and people die because you killed them, so more people die for it. So the consequences of making mistakes are worse for those who kill to protect. Also, in general killing - to protect or for any other reason - tend to have more unpredictable consequences than not killing. for example, your alllies may disagree with you on the need and turn on you, which is less likely to happen otherwise. And let's not forget that while you try to kill to protect, you may not be skilled or powerful enough to manage it, and that also tend to have dire consequences.

which all lead to the point that killing to protect is extremely dangerous business, and should only be considered as a last resort. And while lirin was technically wrong in saying you cannot do it, given the state of roshar and the aamount of pointless warfare, it is at least a passable approximation. And how old was kaladin at the time? I don't remember; ten, eleven? when speaking with one so young, you hardly can slice the fine points of philosophy. You can be forgiven for making some generalization.