[OB] Why not kill the parshmen?

[Pancuca]

So I just finished Words of Radiance last night and I started in the new chapters of Oathbringer. I’ve got it on pre-order on Amazon as well. 

My question is this: if the Everstorm is supposed to turn all the Parshmen into Voidbringers, hundreds of thousands of voidbringers, why not just kill all the parshmen.

seems like everyone was fine just abandoning them. So why not just kill them all? Problem solved. 

[Elena]

Parshmen are very valuable servants. Most Alethi who would maybe listen to Dalinar when he told them to leave their Parshmen behind definitely wouldn't kill them all without proof, and this goes double for all the people he's contacting via spanreed. Also, there wasn't enough time between Shallan telling Dalinar about Jasnah's suspicions re: Parhsmen and their expedition leaving. Even if there had been, both Dalinar's character (as opposite to young!Dalinar, who may very well have had them all killed) and Radiant ideals mean that he wouldn't have gone for such a solution. Going all Minority Report and punishing the Parshmen for what they have not yet done doesn't exactly go hand in hand with praching Life before Death.

ETA: have a welcome upvote!

Edited September 7, 2017 by Elena

[Calderis]

Other than the fact that you'd be committing genocide against a thinking, feeling, enslaved race of people who aren't at any fault as to the situation, nothing. 

Edit: @Elena

Quote

Even if there had been, both Dalinar's character (as opposite to young!Dalinar, who may very well have had them all killed) and Radiant ideals mean that he wouldn't have gone for such a solution. Going all Minority Report and punishing the Parshmen for what they have not yet done doesn't exactly go hand in hand with praching Life before Death.

For Kaladin and Dalinar's interpretation of the Oaths I agree. The Oaths are not universal in that interpretation though. From a purely logical viewpoint genocide is the best course. I think with the Everstorm looming, Jasnah would have proposed the idea herself if she were with the others. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Calderis

[+robardin]

3 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Other than the fact that you'd be committing genocide against a think, feeling, enslaved race of people who aren't at any fault as to the situation, nothing. 

This was my first reaction as well, but then again, if the alternative is to be faced with having to kill them without exception AFTER they Go Voidbringer, wouldn't it be better to kill them in embryo? Unless they had a means or a plan to turn them back into parshmen.

As to the latter, there is indication that there is - if the world's parshmen do indeed have their origins in "de-escalated" Voidbringers from the previous Desolation.

And then as Elena pointed out, there was an insurmountable logistical problem of communicating and convincing everybody with parshmen in all of Roshar of the need to do so in the time they had before the Everstorm swept the world.

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by robardin

[Elena]

3 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Other than the fact that you'd be committing genocide against a thinking, feeling, enslaved race of people who aren't at any fault as to the situation, nothing. 

Edit: @Elena

For Kaladin and Dalinar's interpretation of the Oaths I agree. The Oaths are not universal in that interpretation though. From a purely logical viewpoint genocide is the best course. I think with the Everstorm looming, Jasnah would have proposed the idea herself if she we with the others. 

That's a good point! Jasnah might have. She showed her annoyance at humanity keeping Parshmen as slaves instead of killing them already.

[Calderis]

@robardin I didn't say it wasn't an option. Despite my flippant response, I think it would have been the safest option. Probably not the best from a storytelling perspective, but definitely the best for survival. 

[Runyan Firetree]

There's a few out of context death rattles that address this dilemma:

>I...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.

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

When is it acceptable to kill innocents, in this case people you've enslaved, if you think doing so will give your allies 'further breath to draw'?  If you kill them preemptively, chances are you would violate the first oath, "Life before Death"; but if you don't then they may go on to side with Odium and bring death, destruction, and desolation.

Edited September 7, 2017 by runyan_ft

[Calderis]

I understand why it's there. I understand that the first oath is presented in book the way that it is by Teft as a storytelling device to make all the Radiants look like Noble heroes, and the good guys who we should cheer for. I totally get why people think the way that they do, because they're supposed to... 

We have more than enough evidence for that to be proven untrue. Between the Skybreakers actions in book, the fact that Gavilar had attracted the Stormfather, and plenty of WoBs... The first oath does not mean what people think it means. Read the WoBs in this thread. 

Killing the Parshmen would have been a choice that would have been allowed by the Elsecallers, as it logically prevents more deaths than it will cause. 

It would have been allowed by the Skybreakers, as long as their owners had given permission for their property to be destroyed. 

Not all orders would have agreed. I'm sure that Kaladin would protect them. Lift would object. 

Until we see each orders individual oaths we can't assume what they would and wouldn't find acceptable within their oaths. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Calderis

[Nymeros]

Whooooaaahhh! There's a huge middle ground between doing nothing and committing genocide.

[Pancuca]

very Interesting points all

[The Sovereign]

3 hours ago, Calderis said:

Other than the fact that you'd be committing genocide against a thinking, feeling, enslaved race of people who aren't at any fault as to the situation, nothing. 

Nailed it.

[Calderis]

1 hour ago, Nymeros said:

Whooooaaahhh! There's a huge middle ground between doing nothing and committing genocide.

That middle ground isn't "kill the Parshmen" which is the name of the thread. 

[KidWayne]

6 hours ago, runyan_ft said:

There's a few out of context death rattles that address this dilemma:

>I...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.

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

When is it acceptable to kill innocents, in this case people you've enslaved, if you think doing so will give your allies 'further breath to draw'?  If you kill them preemptively, chances are you would violate the first oath, "Life before Death"; but if you don't then they may go on to side with Odium and bring death, destruction, and desolation.

Got to do what you can to stay alive...

[Andy92]

I personally think this is a very good question (I've seen it come up here before), and I also think it has a complicated answer. Let's think about it from the perspective of something similar that happened in real life: the dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII.

I wrote a paper about this in college. The question basically comes down to, how far are you willing to go in order to cut the head off the snake in times of war? I researched multiple accounts of veterans involved in the atomic bombings, and what the US did to Japan left some of the US veterans sickened. I remember reading a quote from a soldier on one of the two planes carrying an atomic bomb, and his initial reaction was "oh my God, what have we done?" 

On the other side of things, that strategy helped bring WWII to a swift end. It potentially saved many other lived at the expense of millions of Japanese lives. But was it right? 

So in terms of Stormlight Archives, would committing genocide against the parshmen be warranted? That probably depends on who you ask. 

Quote

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.

Kaldin's story arc with his father combined with Brandon regretting the ending of WoR between Kaladin and Szeth enough to change it from killing to Szeth giving up makes me tend to imagine that a parshmen genocide would not match the theme that the stories are trying to tell. It doesn't match the message Brandon is trying to send. 

As a war tactics question, this is definitely worth asking. But as a general question of morality...I don't think killing all of the parshmen would be correct. You're killing one entire race to save another. And the race you're trying to save enslaved the parshmen in the first place, potentially causing this entire mess. 

 

[Subvisual Haze]

Calling it now, Kaladin is totally going to have to defend some innocent Parshmen from a pogrom/lynch mob/ethnic cleansing campaign.  

I will protect even my enemies, so long as it is right.

[geralt]

Personally, I'm hoping Shallan will find something in Urithuru that will stop the Parshendi from transforming unwillingly into Voidbringers. 

[Yata]

37 minutes ago, geralt said:

Personally, I'm hoping Shallan will find something in Urithuru that will stop the Parshendi from transforming unwillingly into Voidbringers. 

The Parshendi doesn't transform unwillingly, the Parshmen (for their weak willpower that mostly can't protect them from a voidspren) will do it.

If some Listener is in a Form He would resist the effect quite well I suppose.

Sure the Listener already in a Form of Power will be willing to take another Form of Power

[Ansalem]

6 minutes ago, Yata said:

The Parshendi doesn't transform unwillingly, the Parshmen (for their weak willpower that mostly can't protect them from a voidspren) will do it.

If some Listener is in a Form He would resist the effect quite well I suppose.

Sure the Listener already in a Form of Power will be willing to take another Form of Power

I disagree. Eshonai was changed against her will. That could have been a special circumstance, of course, but we don't yet know if that's the case.

[Yata]

15 minutes ago, Ansalem said:

I disagree. Eshonai was changed against her will. That could have been a special circumstance, of course, but we don't yet know if that's the case.

Because she firstly wanted and open herself to the Stormspren. When she decide to not want to change was already too late.

If a Parshman could prevent a Stormspen from turning him, I can't see Eshonai unable to do the same in the right timeframe

Edited September 9, 2017 by Yata

[Pattern]

Committing a genocide. Sure, great solution. I would call that a victory for Odium.

[Erunion]

As has been repeated ad nauseum: genocide == maybe not a great plan? 

A much better plan would be uplift - figure out how to get the parshmen bonds ASAP to 'inoculate' them against stormspren/other voidspren. 

[redbishop]

15 hours ago, Erunion said:

As has been repeated ad nauseum: genocide == maybe not a great plan? 

A much better plan would be uplift - figure out how to get the parshmen bonds ASAP to 'inoculate' them against stormspren/other voidspren. 

This is an interesting line to see drawn.  Alethi culture views Parshmen as inescapably property - so much so that the idea of freeing a Parshman along with the Bridgemen was viewed as ridiculous, and Kaladin.  It goes beyond chattel slavery, as Parshmen apparently can't be freed.  Parshman slavery is permanent, enduring, and genetic.  It goes beyond simple thralldom, and into a permanent chattel slavery.

I mention this because I think it is impossible to practice that level of slavery and possess sufficient empathy on the societal level for the common person to view it as genocide.  People would oppose it, some because it makes them feel uncomfortable, and many more because Parshmen are/have always been valuable goods.  Jasnah even speculates that is why they weren't all killed in the beginning - economics and efficiency, not compassion.

...and after that depressing post, I'm going to make myself some tea and be glad that this system doesn't openly exist in our world, at least.

[Pancuca]

1 minute ago, redbishop said:

This is an interesting line to see drawn.  Alethi culture views Parshmen as inescapably property - so much so that the idea of freeing a Parshman along with the Bridgemen was viewed as ridiculous, and Kaladin.  It goes beyond chattel slavery, as Parshmen apparently can't be freed.  Parshman slavery is permanent, enduring, and genetic.  It goes beyond simple thralldom, and into a permanent chattel slavery.

I mention this because I think it is impossible to practice that level of slavery and possess sufficient empathy on the societal level for the common person to view it as genocide.  People would oppose it, some because it makes them feel uncomfortable, and many more because Parshmen are/have always been valuable goods.  Jasnah even speculates that is why they weren't all killed in the beginning - economics and efficiency, not compassion.

...and after that depressing post, I'm going to make myself some tea and be glad that this system doesn't openly exist in our world, at least.

Very good point. 

Based on that, killing all the Parshmen in Roshar would be similar to confiscating and destroying everyone's Playstation 4 on Earth. 

[Calderis]

3 minutes ago, Pancuca said:

Based on that, killing all the Parshmen in Roshar would be similar to confiscating and destroying everyone's Playstation 4 on Earth.

I think it would be more like killing work horses. They are considered property, and everyone is fully aware that they are living things. 

[redbishop]

1 minute ago, Pancuca said:

Very good point. 

Based on that, killing all the Parshmen in Roshar would be similar to confiscating and destroying everyone's Playstation 4 on Earth. 

Thanks!

I was trying to find a good parallel, and that's probably close, except PS4s don't do useful work.  I will pause for the irony of making that statement on a web forum wherein we speculate about the functioning of a Universe created in the mind of another human being - many of us obsessively.

I think Smartphones may be a better analogy, if they possessed sentience but limited sapience.  Useful, you get attached to yours, but as a class?  They are just... phones.  Destroy them?  But...  they are really expensive.  How could they pose any threat.  They are, after all, only phones...