Amaram: Redemption or Revenge

[HydrogenAlpha he/him]

I call Amaram is the next Sazed.. or he ends up dying in a rather horrible manner.

[Moogle]

Also, could you provide a reference for Amaram fighting the Voidbringers?  And I find it hard to believe that Gavilar, while dying, would refer to Taravangian as anything other than "Taravangian", as that's what everyone else calls him.  It makes believing him to be Restares fairly difficult.  And, honestly, would feel like a really cheap misdirect from Sanderson.

 

I suspect most people don't know Taravangian is Restares, hence Gavilar calling him that. Thaidakar is a similar leader of the Ghostbloods. I'm not sure if we've seen him, yet.

 

As to Amaram, here's the bit by Brandon:

kurin

I heard that if he's away from a keyboard for more than fifteen minutes he develops a nervous tick where he starts tapping out rough drafts with his fingers in Morse code. He doesn't even know he's doing it.

Brandon Sanderson

. .- -.-. .... / - .. -- . / -.-- --- ..- / .- .-.. .-.. --- .-- / - .... .. ... --..-- / .- -- .- .-. .- -- / ... .- .. -.. --..-- / .. - / -.. .-. .. ...- . ... / .- / .-- . -.. --. . / -... . - .-- . . -. / .... .. -- / .- -. -.. / - .... . / - .... .-. --- -. . .-.-.- / .- -- .- .-. .- -- / - --- --- -.- / -.. .- .-.. .. -. .- .-. / -... -.-- / - .... . / .- .-. -- --..-- / ... - --- .--. .--. .. -. --. / .... .. -- / ..-. .-. --- -- / -.-. --- -. - .. -. ..- .. -. --. / ..-. --- .-. .-- .- .-. -.. .-.-.- / .-- . / .... .- ...- . / -... .. --. --. . .-. / .--. .-. --- -... .-.. . -- ... / - .... .- -. / -.-- --- ..- / .- -. -.. / ... .- -.. . .- ... --..-- / -- -.-- / ..-. .-. .. . -. -.. .-.-.- / -.-- . ... --..-- / .... . / -... . - .-. .- -.-- . -.. / -.-- --- ..- .-.-.- / -.-- . ... --..-- / .... . / .-.. .. -.- . .-.. -.-- / .-- .. .-.. .-.. / .- --. .- .. -. .-.-.- / -... ..- - / .-- . / -.-. .- -. / - / .- ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. / - --- / .-.. . - / - .... . / - .-- --- / --- ..-. / -.-- --- ..- / --. --- / - --- / .-- .- .-. .-.-.- / - .... . / ...- --- .. -.. -... .-. .. -. --. . .-. ... / .- .-. . / -.-. --- -- .. -. --. .-.-.-

SkyCyril

Crying from laughing. That's a real passage. You're awesome, Brandon.

EACH/TIME/YOU/ALLOW/THIS,/AMARAM/SAID,/IT/DRIVES/A/WEDGE/BETWEEN/HIM/AND/THE/THRONE./ AMARAM/TOOK/DALINAR/BY/THE/ARM,/STOPPING/HIM/FROM/CONTINUING/FORWARD./ WE/HAVE/BIGGER/PROBLEMS/THAN/YOU/AND/SADEAS,/MY/FRIEND./ YES,/HE/BETRAYED/YOU./YES,/HE/LIKELY/WILL/AGAIN./BUT/WE/CAN/T/AFFORD/ TO/LET/THE/TWO/OF/YOU/GO/TO/WAR./THE/VOIDBRINGERS/ARE/COMING.

 

(source)

Edited January 30, 2014 by Moogle

[Oudeis he/him]

Like many of the character's we've met so far, Amaram has done some bad things. So far he's got a lot in common with Szeth and Taravangian in that he shows an awareness and/or remorse, but believes at some level that he's choosing the lesser of two evils. I think you have to construct an extremely contrived argument to place Amaram into a more extreme category of "badness" or "unforgivable-ness" than Szeth and Taravangian. In terms of sheer scale, both Szeth and Taravangian have probably been significantly "worse" than Amaram (though this kind of comparison is pretty silly given that "worse" here is wildly subjective and not well-defined, and not to mention the whole difference in screen time).

...

He very clearly expressed remorse and empathy when he screws Kaladin over. I guess we can chalk this up to how strongly folks seem to identify with and want to "stick up for" Kaladin.

 

You just wrote off the merciless slaughter of four innocents in order to punish them for an action you assume they will some day perform as "some bad things like everyone does," as though it's on par with "After I left the store I realized I was given an extra doughnut, but I didn't go back and return it."

 

He doesn't express "real remorse," he expresses justification. My point from before stands. If you're going to say that no man is a villain until he admits that he sees himself as a villain, that he doesn't think his acts are justified and he's gonna do it anyway, then you will never find any actual antagonist in any book series. Read Warbreaker. Every man is the hero in his own story.

 

Lastly, it offends me when people ascribe intentions to my words and actions. Please don't presume that you have the right to tell me why I feel and say what I feel and say. If you choose to interpret the facts differently than I do, fine. If you're going to publicly comment that the only possible reason I could be blinded to the facts that seem so obvious to you is that I'm in love with Kaladin, you're wrong, and you're being very insulting.

 

It is a war. In war, hard choices must be made.

 

...

 

Roshar isn't black and white… a good man can perform evil acts, and a evil man can be redeemed, to a level.

Again, this is nothing but excuses. Amaram didn't make a difficult choice, he made an easy choice. I get cool toys, and I make other people pay for it. He slaughtered them and publicly branded them as traitors to cover up his crimes, just because it would have been slightly awkward if they'd come forward later and claimed he didn't really earn them, all because he himself is so obsessed with Shards that he literally cannot understand the concept that others aren't. If all he cared about were, "you might ask for them back," fine, get one of your scribes to write up some sort of legally binding contract and buy the Shards from Kaladin. That's all the cover you need. Amaram slaughtered men who literally kept fighting as their brothers died, to save Amaram's own life.

 

Could he possibly express true remorse sometime in the future and perhaps find some small measure of redemption? Maybe. But he's expressed no true remorse yet; his defensive "well I just assume you're a terrible enough person to deserve this" justification as he condemns Kaladin to slavery and tells himself what a wonderful man he is wouldn't recognize true remorse if it came at him with a Shardblade.

 

Literally any villainous act can be wallpapered over with "good intentions" or "greater good" or "misguided" or "hard choices." If all you're saying is, no one ever does anything wrong because they can always justify it in their own minds, then, well, I just think people need to be held to a higher standard than that.

[Moogle]

 Again, this is nothing but excuses. Amaram didn't make a difficult choice, he made an easy choice.

 

Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post, but this part stuck out to me. It's interesting, because I think the choice Amaram did was the hard one.

 

He apparently spent hours talking with Restares just to be convinced to do it. Letting the man who saved you keep his Shards is easy; it's what most of us would do. Killing his men, selling him into slavery, and branding him, knowing you're going to have to deal with the guilt so you can potentially do a lot of good elsewhere is hard.

 

I mean, unless you're proposing Amaram is a psychopath/incredibly greedy/some other option, but Amaram really didn't strike me as being either of the first two.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Moogle

[treblkickd he/him]

I'm not quick to dismiss someone's religious beliefs in the Cosmere.  They've been proven right before.  There may well be a very good reason that Szeth behaves as he does.  Especially since Stone Shamanism seems to be relatively on the ball.  

 

Or, as you say, he could simply be insane.  At which point, it's very hard to hold it against him (especially as insanity has, in the Cosmere, been shown to open you up to influence from what are essentially Gods).  Insanity would, under most modern legal systems, make him literally no longer responsible for his actions.  

 

Fair enough, but the trouble here is that  I don't think it's clearly religion that is driving Szeth's choices. Most of his references to Stone Shamanism come up with respect to walking on stone, or how stormlight is used, and in most of those contexts he's flaunting his Stone Shamanism beliefs. Whatever is driving Szeth's choices, I don't think it's his religion (it actually seems to be causing him to undermine his religion, as well as assassinate hordes of people).

 

--

 

You just wrote off the merciless slaughter of four innocents in order to punish them for an action you assume they will some day perform as "some bad things like everyone does," as though it's on par with "After I left the store I realized I was given an extra doughnut, but I didn't go back and return it."

 

I didn't write anything off, I said that bad things had been done, and argued that they were chosen as the lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

He doesn't express "real remorse," he expresses justification. My point from before stands. If you're going to say that no man is a villain until he admits that he sees himself as a villain, that he doesn't think his acts are justified and he's gonna do it anyway, then you will never find any actual antagonist in any book series. Read Warbreaker. Every man is the hero in his own story.

 

I think you need to reread the passage. Firstly, Amaram offered Kaladin the shards and Kaladin refused them. He spends hours being convinced to take the shards, at which point he explicitly expresses regret and guilt. He is openly defensive about what he's doing - Amaram here is *admitting* that what he's doing is villainous and wrong, but believes it's necessary. It takes a painfully contrived (and cynical) reading of the scene to deny that Amaram was torn and conflicted by his decision.

 

Incidentally, I have read Warbreaker, and I've also read some Mary McCarthy, who said "We are the hero of our own story" some 50 years ago.

 

 

 

Lastly, it offends me when people ascribe intentions to my words and actions. Please don't presume that you have the right to tell me why I feel and say what I feel and say. If you choose to interpret the facts differently than I do, fine. If you're going to publicly comment that the only possible reason I could be blinded to the facts that seem so obvious to you is that I'm in love with Kaladin, you're wrong, and you're being very insulting.

 

This is the internet, a place where we share our opinions and perspectives. I'm sorry if you were insulted, that wasn't my intention. Reading your post I'm pretty sure I don't have a monopoly on the being-insulting. 

 

--

Quote

 

 

Some people on these forums are fans of Kant's categorical imperative (a surprising amount, actually), so not everyone is going to agree with your statement here. (I disagree with it for reasons relating to language, but I have absolutely no desire to write an essay post on the matter. If you're interested on the why, see if you can't snag a copy of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It's dull reading, but very insightful.)

 

 

Agreed, and it is disappointing. I'm more of a William James fan, myself.

Edited January 31, 2014 by FeatherWriter
Please don't double or triple post! Use the Edit button if you need to add something!

[Oudeis he/him]

He apparently spent hours talking with Restares just to be convinced to do it. Letting the man who saved you keep his Shards is easy; it's what most of us would do. Killing his men, selling him into slavery, and branding him, knowing you're going to have to deal with the guilt so you can potentially do a lot of good elsewhere is hard.

 

You're basing this all on the baseless assumption that he is, in fact, feeling guilty about it. Before the bodies have finished bleeding, he's already telling Kaladin how this is all for the best, and telling Kaladin was a terrible person he is. "You would have come back for them."

 

He's not "dealing with the guilt" by respecting the dead or bearing a burden or anything; he's dealing with it by telling himself, and Kaladin, "I did the right thing, so there's nothing to be guilty about. You're lying when you say I could have had the Shards, and rather than trust these men, who risked their lives for mine, I've chosen to kill them so I can silence them forever."

 

As I've said. The only thing that would have been damaged if Amaram had let them live was his own reputation. He would never have had to give up the Shards, it would have had zero impact on his ability to "aid Alethkar". Simple solution: Buy the Shards from Kaladin. Get him to sign a document. Sure, people will know that you purchased them instead of earning them. Amaram's pride is the only obstacle in his way, and he made the choice to kill men because of it.

 

 

This is the internet, a place where we share our opinions and perspectives. I'm sorry if you were insulted, that wasn't my intention. Reading your post I'm pretty sure I don't have a monopoly on the being-insulting. 

 

No one, anywhere, on the internet or off, has the right to tell someone, "I know what you're thinking."

[hoser he/him]

Szeth's motivation is revealed on tWoK.  He would like to have his spirit continue to exist in the stone after he dies rather than cease to exist .  It seems entirely selfish, but apparently sensible(?) within the Stone Shaman religious culture.

I'm not quick to dismiss someone's religious beliefs in the Cosmere.  They've been proven right before.  There may well be a very good reason that Szeth behaves as he does.  Especially since Stone Shamanism seems to be relatively on the ball.  

 

Or, as you say, he could simply be insane.  At which point, it's very hard to hold it against him (especially as insanity has, in the Cosmere, been shown to open you up to influence from what are essentially Gods).  Insanity would, under most modern legal systems, make him literally no longer responsible for his actions.  

Our modern society does make exceptions for the insane when they can be prevented from doing harm.  However, insane or not, responsible or not, I think a modern society would say that he must be stopped and if necessary to stop him continuing to murder, killed.  Obviously a padded cell w/no stormlight would be more humane.  So, in a way, insanity or responsibility is irrelevant. 

Fair enough, but the trouble here is that  I don't think it's clearly religion that is driving Szeth's choices. Most of his references to Stone Shamanism come up with respect to walking on stone, or how stormlight is used, and in most of those contexts he's flaunting his Stone Shamanism beliefs. Whatever is driving Szeth's choices, I don't think it's his religion (it actually seems to be causing him to undermine his religion, as well as assassinate hordes of people).

Well, the religion seems to inform his POV, which then drives his choices.
From I-6:

Dangerous thoughts. His way of life was all he had left to him.  If he questioned Stone Shamanism, would he then question his nature as Truthless?  Dangerous, dangerous.  THough his murders and sins would damnation him, at least his soul would be given to the stones upon his death.  He would continue to exist.  Punished, in agony, but not exiled to nothingness. 

Better to exist in agony than to vanish entirely.

 

Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post, but this part stuck out to me. It's interesting, because I think the choice Amaram did was the hard one.

 

He apparently spent hours talking with Restares just to be convinced to do it. Letting the man who saved you keep his Shards is easy; it's what most of us would do. Killing his men, selling him into slavery, and branding him, knowing you're going to have to deal with the guilt so you can potentially do a lot of good elsewhere is hard.

 

I mean, unless you're proposing Amaram is a psychopath/incredibly greedy/some other option, but Amaram really didn't strike me as being either of the first two.

Anybody's actions can be justified within their own POV.  Amaram murdered, enslaved and stole from his most loyal followers because of how he saw the world.  Dalinar is progressing toward seeing the world a different way, which is why he could give up a Shardblade for a thousand darkeyed slaves.  Some obvious elements of Amaram's POV are that darkeyes are inferior and that the end can justify any means on occasion. 

 

If we want to fairly judge Amaram, I think we would have to ignore his POV.  The consequentialist argument about greater good seems insane to me as we can never know what happens down any other road than the one we travel, so any comparison is hypothetical. 

 

The same logic unfortuanately applies to Mr. T.  No matter how much of a genius he is, he would need to have perfect knowledge of everything and be able to predict all outcomes to be right.  I don't think that is possible, so he will make assumptions based on his world view.  We can see the results of his assumptions.

 

I think judgement has to be based on actions, as intentions and greater good arguments can be used to justify anything, and greater good arguments are unverifiable. 

 

Firstly, Amaram offered Kaladin the shards and Kaladin refused them. He spends hours being convinced to take the shards, at which point he explicitly expresses regret and guilt. He is openly defensive about what he's doing - Amaram here is *admitting* that what he's doing is villainous and wrong, but believes it's necessary. It takes a painfully contrived (and cynical) reading of the scene to deny that Amaram was torn and conflicted by his decision.

Do we know Amaram would have given Kaladin the Shards if he had accepted them?  Could the offer have been a trap to ease the tortured justifications in Amaram's mind? 

What if Amaram had said "I will kill your men, enslave you and steal the Shards if you don't take them?"  I think Kaladin would have taken the Shards to save his men.  He could always give them away later. 

Amaram had choices and justifications, but potentially offering the Shards and wrestling with the decision seem to me irrelevant to any judgement. 

 

Edit: added Szeth quote

Edited January 30, 2014 by hoser

[treblkickd he/him]

You're basing this all on the baseless assumption that he is, in fact, feeling guilty about it. Before the bodies have finished bleeding, he's already telling Kaladin how this is all for the best, and telling Kaladin was a terrible person he is. "You would have come back for them."

 

He's not "dealing with the guilt" by respecting the dead or bearing a burden or anything; he's dealing with it by telling himself, and Kaladin, "I did the right thing, so there's nothing to be guilty about. You're lying when you say I could have had the Shards, and rather than trust these men, who risked their lives for mine, I've chosen to kill them so I can silence them forever."

 

As I've said. The only thing that would have been damaged if Amaram had let them live was his own reputation. He would never have had to give up the Shards, it would have had zero impact on his ability to "aid Alethkar". Simple solution: Buy the Shards from Kaladin. Get him to sign a document. Sure, people will know that you purchased them instead of earning them. Amaram's pride is the only obstacle in his way, and he made the choice to kill men because of it.

 

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - to my eye Amaram's guilt is in plain view in the scene, and I'm far from alone in acknowledging that. No one, including Amaram, is happy about what he's done. Amaram says straight up that he believes he is sacrificing a few dark eyed soldiers to save thousands. I think it requires some serious cynicism to flatly assert that Amaram is just lying about his reasons and motivations. He doesn't have to convince Kaladin of anything; if he just wants the shards, then he can just say so. The fact that he offers the shards to Kaladin multiple times is clear evidence that shard-wanting is *not* his motivation.

 

Ascribing the worst possible motivations to Amaram requires mental gymnastics and only serves to paint him in a simplistic black/white way; BS tends to write characters that are more complex that.

 

 

 

No one, anywhere, on the internet or off, has the right to tell someone, "I know what you're thinking." 

 

I just made a guess at what was motivating your interpretation of a scene, which is very much my right. Right now I don't have to guess that you're acting very self-righteously. 

[Moogle]

If we want to fairly judge Amaram, I think we would have to ignore his POV.  The consequentialist argument about greater good seems insane to me as we can never know what happens down any other road than the one we travel, so any comparison is hypothetical. 

 

The same logic unfortuanately applies to Mr. T.  No matter how much of a genius he is, he would need to have perfect knowledge of everything and be able to predict all outcomes to be right.  I don't think that is possible, so he will make assumptions based on his world view.  We can see the results of his assumptions.

 

We make choices based on imperfect knowledge all the time. We have to. You don't know the grocery store is open or hasn't burned down when you go shopping, but you go anyway. It is the very essence of being an intelligent being to be uncertain.

 

It is also very possible to predict the future, at least in a general sense. We do studies for medicine, and we can rightfully say that there is an X% chance that a certain drug will save someone from dying from cancer because we literally measured that. To require perfect knowledge of the future before acting is to be incapable of acting.

Imagine you hit a button. Hitting it will kill one person. There's a 99% chance to save a hundred lives and a 1% chance that no one will be saved if you hit it. I'd certainly hope most people would hit that button. Doing otherwise is a little bit risk-averse for my tastes.

The difference for Taravangian is that the probabilities are a little less clear-cut and the button happens to be rather disturbing to press. Thankfully, he's also had days of super-intelligence to help him with that.

Just because something is 'hypothetical' in no way makes it meaningless.

 

Do we know Amaram would have given Kaladin the Shards if he had accepted them?  Could the offer have been a trap to ease the tortured justifications in Amaram's mind?

How could he have taken them if Kaladin went out in public wearing them and said they were his? He could have assassinated him, but that would have killed his reputation, something he's taken pains to cultivate. If Kaladin claimed the Shards, Amaram wouldn't have done anything.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Moogle

[Aether he/him]

Woah! This looks to have become rather heated!

 

I am myself amongst the ones who consider Amaram to be a (mostly) noble character who have become severely misguided. But whether people agree with that assessment or not, we should not debase ourselves to ad hominem argumentation and attacks. If we cannot have a civil moral debate, then I suggest it is time to leave it be.

[treblkickd he/him]

 

 

I think judgement has to be based on actions, as intentions and greater good arguments can be used to justify anything, and greater good arguments are unverifiable. 

 

I would argue that judgement requires context. A greater good argument doesn't have to be verifiable - the point is that there can be more than one interpretation to the best possible moral outcome of a decision. There isn't always (or even generally) a simple "right" answer. Down with determinism, I say. Moral determinism is unacceptable.

 

 

Do we know Amaram would have given Kaladin the Shards if he had accepted them?  Could the offer have been a trap to ease the tortured justifications in Amaram's mind? 

What if Amaram had said "I will kill your men, enslave you and steal the Shards if you don't take them?"  I think Kaladin would have taken the Shards to save his men.  He could always give them away later. 

Amaram had choices and justifications, but potentially offering the Shards and wrestling with the decision seem to me irrelevant to any judgement. 

 

 

Well of course we don't *know* the outcome of this hypothetical, but I don't think we have any good reason to believe that Amaram disingenuously offered the shards to Kaladin multiple times. Amaram is painted as a good, honorable guy, and his guilt and defensiveness at what he's doing is in line with a person who wants to do the right thing.

Edited January 30, 2014 by treblkickd

[hoser he/him]

The consequentialist argument is actually not totally invalid.  I even make it myself in the same post when I argue that Szeth may have to be killed, even if he is insane, if he can't be restrained somehow. 

 
We make choices based on imperfect knowledge all the time. We have to. You don't know the grocery store is open or hasn't burned down when you go shopping, but you go anyway. It is the very essence of being an intelligent being to be uncertain.

 

It is also very possible to predict the future, at least in a general sense. We do studies for medicine, and we can rightfully say that there is an X% chance that a certain drug will save someone from dying from cancer because we literally measured that. To require perfect knowledge of the future before acting is to be incapable of acting.

Imagine you hit a button. Hitting it will kill one person. There's a 99% chance to save a hundred lives and a 1% chance that no one will be saved if you hit it. I'd certainly hope most people would hit that button. Doing otherwise is a little bit risk-averse for my tastes.

The difference for Taravangian is that the probabilities are a little less clear-cut and the button happens to be rather disturbing to press. Thankfully, he's also had days of super-intelligence to help him with that.

Just because something is 'hypothetical' in no way makes it meaningless.
 

How could he have taken them if Kaladin went out in public wearing them and said they were his? He could have assassinated him, but that would have killed his reputation, something he's taken pains to cultivate. If Kaladin claimed the Shards, Amaram wouldn't have done anything.

Yes, society is forced to make choices in the certainty of harm.  Medicine is an example of this.  That is why we have medical review boards, clinical trials, peer-reviewed journals and judicial oversight.  One of the purposes of this, I believe, is to eliminate personal gain from the evaluation of the outcome.  Another purpose, IMO, is to make sure that all options are considered. 

Amaram's choice is tainted in both ways, IMO. 

 

You make an excellent point that things are not as black and white as I say.  But I think we can see the differences between the scenarios you present and Amaram's choices. 

 

Contrived scenarios with buttons and known deaths don't apply in Amaram's case.  He does not know what will happen if he doesn't take up the Shards.  Since we know that civilization will somehow survive the final Desolation, the consequentialist judgement will always favor Amaram. 

 

If this were not a story where Kaladin has to make it up from the dregs and the ultimate outcome will not be planetary annihilation, it might well be that Amaram could be more effective with a loyal Shardbearer at his side than with Shards.  His lust for the Shards will taint his evaluation of outcomes and options. 

 

When deciding that Amaram was willing to give up the Shards, please consider his justification for taking them.  His justification for the murder, enslavement and stealing applies equally well whether Coreb or Kaladin had kept the Shards. 

 

Discussion of what would have happened if Amaram had offered Kaladin the Shards is fortunately moot, as Amaram did not do so.  He did ask why Kaladin went to his defense, but that is all.  Kaladin claimed the Shards anyway, saying "Those Shards are mine".  Amaram did what he did.  After a reread, I claim there is no support in the text for the notion that Amaram would have given up the Shards to Kaladin if he had wanted them for himself at that point.   

[Aether he/him]

A very good and eloquent post, hoser, but I am rather confused by this specific part:

Contrived scenarios with buttons and known deaths don't apply in Amaram's case.  He does not know what will happen if he doesn't take up the Shards.  Since we know that civilization will somehow survive the final Desolation, the consequentialist judgement will always favor Amaram. 

Exactly how do we know that civilization will prevail? Is not his entire reasoning, at least in the light of the teaser from WoR, that the Shards would be of better use in the up-coming desolation in his possession than in an unknown wild card's, such as Kaladin and Coreb? In my opinion, especially if he is earnest in his belief that he can do more to prevent/combat the coming storm than his unfortunate underlings, it is exactly in this kind of scenario that the consequentialistic reasoning would apply.

[hoser he/him]

Thank you Aether!  Based on meta-reasoning.

A very good and eloquent post, hoser, but I am rather confused by this specific part:

Exactly how do we know that civilization will prevail? Is not his entire reasoning, at least in the light of the teaser from WoR, that the Shards would be of better use in the up-coming desolation in his possession than in an unknown wild card's, such as Kaladin and Coreb? In my opinion, especially if he is earnest in his belief that he can do more to prevent/combat the coming storm than his unfortunate underlings, it is exactly in this kind of scenario that the consequentialistic reasoning would apply.

I just don't think Brandon wants to write five or ten books where the ending is:  "The desolation complete, Odium picked up the last scraps of his investiture from the environs of the obliterated planet, secure in the knowledge that nobody could pick up the Shards of either Honor or Cultivation, as there was no longer anything but void.  As the last sentient being had died, Shadesmar in this area had contracted to nothingness.  It was time to deal with Harmony ..." 

I don't think we want to read that story either.  Some of our heroes may die, but it will not have been in vain.  I don't think it would do anything for the sales, once the ending became known.  

Edited January 30, 2014 by hoser

[Aether he/him]

I just don't think Brandon wants to write five or ten books where the ending is:  "The desolation complete, Odium picked up the last scraps of his investiture from the environs of the obliterated planet, secure in the knowledge that nobody could pick up the Shards of either Honor or Cultivation, as there was no longer anything but void.  As the last sentient being had died, Shadesmar in this area had contracted to nothingness.  It was time to deal with Harmony ..." 

I don't think we want to read that story either.  Some of our heroes may die, but it will not have been in vain.  I don't think it would do anything for the sales, once the ending became known.  

I agree that it is likely that civilization will prevail, but this is a prediction is made from our perspective, knowing that authors, at the very least not anyone with Brandon's type of style, does not tend to let everything go to shits. Amaram, on the other hand, would not be privy to this information, as he is part of the fiction itself. I believe all assessments of the validity of his moral reasoning should be done in universe, as anything else would be to judge Amaram's choice out-of-context.

[Moogle]

I don't think we want to read that story either.  Some of our heroes may die, but it will not have been in vain.  I don't think it would do anything for the sales, once the ending became known.  

 

I don't want to read a copy of Mistborn, either. Evil Shard is driven back/destroyed, everyone is happy? It can only be done once before it becomes formulaic. I expect something... more from the Stormlight Archive. Odium killing everyone off would work, depending on the story. There's three planets in Greater Roshar. I could see the a chunk of humanity ending up on a different planet, starting up legends of the time when the Voidbringers first forced them from the Tranquiline Halls, and then to Roshar, and then finally to Damnation. And then we get the second set of five books where they fight to take Roshar back or something.

[hoser he/him]

I agree that it is likely that civilization will prevail, but this is a prediction is made from our perspective, knowing that authors, at the very least not anyone with Brandon's type of style, does not tend to let everything go to shits. Amaram, on the other hand, would not be privy to this information, as he is part of the fiction itself. I believe all assessments of the validity of his moral reasoning should be done in universe, as anything else would be to judge Amaram's choice out-of-context.

I claim, in universe, that Amaram does not see the information he needs to make an informed decision when it is right in front of him.  He sees Kaladin as one of "a few darkeyed spearmen", and could as easily have killed him as enslaved him.  The ardent's teachings and societal prejudices have blinded him to the reality that he witnessed when Kaladin took down the Shardbearer.  Surgebinders are likely to be vital in the resistance to the voidbringers that Amaram talks about. 

 

If you claim that Amaram must be judged on his own understanding, in-world, then will his actions always be justified? 

 

I don't want to read a copy of Mistborn, either. Evil Shard is driven back/destroyed, everyone is happy? It can only be done once before it becomes formulaic. I expect something... more from the Stormlight Archive. Odium killing everyone off would work, depending on the story. There's three planets in Greater Roshar. I could see the a chunk of humanity ending up on a different planet, starting up legends of the time when the Voidbringers first forced them from the Tranquiline Halls, and then to Roshar, and then finally to Damnation. And then we get the second set of five books where they fight to take Roshar back or something.

Amen, brother (sister? your profile doesn't say, but sibling just doesn't have that ring).  It can't be total failure, nor can it be too predictable. 

[Walker]

 

Imagine you hit a button. Hitting it will kill one person. There's a 99% chance to save a hundred lives and a 1% chance that no one will be saved if you hit it. I'd certainly hope most people would hit that button. Doing otherwise is a little bit risk-averse for my tastes.

 

 

Most people would not because they would be convicted of manslaughter for doing so.

 

You are not talking about performing an action that only saves a select group of people who are all in danger.  You are talking about sacrificing a random person -- without that person's consent -- to save others.  The consent factor here is key. There are absolutely no respected ethical or legal scholars anywhere today who accept this extreme version of utilitarianism.  Your example is actually used as a critique for why utilitarianism fails.

[Aether he/him]

I claim, in universe, that Amaram does not see the information he needs to make an informed decision when it is right in front of him.  He sees Kaladin as one of "a few darkeyed spearmen", and could as easily have killed him as enslaved him.  The ardent's teachings and societal prejudices have blinded him to the reality that he witnessed when Kaladin took down the Shardbearer.  Surgebinders are likely to be vital in the resistance to the voidbringers that Amaram talks about.

There are signs that suggest Kaladin might have already been surgebinding at this point, but they are very subtle and might in the end just be the effect of the imagination of a panicked young boy. Even if he was actually Surgebinding, I find entirely ridiculous that Amaram should have been able to notice these the small signs of it in the chaos and heat of the battle - even if he was aware that Surgebinding was returning, which I find extremely unlikely in the first place.

 

If you claim that Amaram must be judged on his own understanding, in-world, then will his actions always be justified?

I wasn't really making the argument that he should be judged on his own justification for what he did, but that it should be viewed in the context of the SA universe, not as a book written by an author we might believe unwilling to kill of the entire population of Roshar. If Amaram knew that the Everstorm was approaching, and it seems likely that all of humanity (on Roshar) would be slaughtered if necessary steps were not taken, then that is the basis on which we should view and judge his actions.

 

I am not, however, (currently) claiming that what he did was justified, but that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until we learn more about his motivation and future plans.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Aether

[Moogle]

Most people would not because they would be convicted of manslaughter for doing so.

 

And what if there were no threats of legal persecution? Furthermore, it would be rather selfish to not want to go to jail in order to save 98 people, I would argue. (Perhaps I should say that it would be selfless to do so?)

 

The consent factor here is key.

 

How do you know?

 

 

There are absolutely no respected ethical or legal scholars anywhere today who accept this extreme version of utilitarianism. 

 

Why would that matter? Seems like an appeal to authority to me.

 

 

Your example is actually used as a critique for why utilitarianism fails.

 

Please provide said critique.

[Aether he/him]

There are absolutely no respected ethical or legal scholars anywhere today who accept this extreme version of utilitarianism.  Your example is actually used as a critique for why utilitarianism fails.

I am not sure this statement is correct. While many would not call most politicians "respected", isn't it exactly this kind of "extreme utilitarianism" that was used (and is still used) to defend America's use of torture? Also, I am quite confident that there are many "ethical and legal scholars" e. g. College and University professors that do subscribe to some of the traditional utilitarians' philosophies.

[soulcastJam he/him]

I find it interesting that these posts are so caught up with the "right" way to judge Amaram.  He isn't going to be judged by an omniscient being (I don't think even Sanderson would claim that for this context although he has the most right).  I don't think trying to judge him impartially is really a useful since it won't happen.  Even if Dalinar or Elhokar were presented with the facts they would have to weigh the question of whether or not he will be necessary enough to Alethkar to justify not punishing him to as much as they think he deserves.  

[Cheese Ninja he/him]

I am really, really looking forward to the Amaram and Kaladin interaction.

 

They can't ignore each other, and neither of them can reveal the whole truth to the world at large.  In Kaladin's case, because he would be considered a liar and thus lose any degree of respectability, and in Amaram's case, because even by Alethi standards, that degree of dastardly behavior would be enough to get him ostracized at the very least.

 

Amaram knows he's done Kaladin a great wrong though, so any private interaction should really involve some degree of diffidence on Amaram's part.  On the other hand, if he doesn't give Kaladin any respect, it would be a lot of fun to see Kaladin beating the crap out of him. So much fun.  I'm kinda hoping it happens no matter what.

 

Main topic: I'll go with a possible redemption for Amaram.  I don't think Kaladin will forgive him, but I think Kaladin will have to let go of his hatred toward him in order to do what needs to be done for the coming battles.

“All is withdrawn for me. I stand against the one who saved my life. I protect the one who killed my promises. I raise my hand. The storm responds.”

I wonder if this will be about Kaladin and Amaram, and if we'll see it in Words of Radiance.

[Shadow Guardian he/him]

I think what ultimately condemns Amaram in the eyes of so many, including my own, is that he could have just asked, as Kaladin told him. In the end though, he cared too much about his own reputation, and had to prevent people from talking, which is what separates him from the likes of say, Dalinar, who care more about actual honor, and staying true to themselves, rather than the appearance thereof.

[Chlehrma]

@cheese ninja

The more I think about that quote, the more I think it is Dalinar that raises his hand and he does so to break up the fight between Kaladin and Amaram.