bo.montier Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, Calderis said: You'd think... Ha, as you may have picked up from other topics, I'm on the other side of these things. Morality is pretty black and white for MOST of the important things. If you're talking about modesty standards, who cares, but if you're talking about whether or not killing that person was murder, well, there's a right and a wrong answer. It may not be easy to find that answer, but it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, bo.montier said: Ha, as you may have picked up from other topics, I'm on the other side of these things. Morality is pretty black and white for MOST of the important things. If you're talking about modesty standards, who cares, but if you're talking about whether or not killing that person was murder, well, there's a right and a wrong answer. It may not be easy to find that answer, but it's there. I think the morality they were talking of is people's opinion on whether said theoretical murder was justified being different person to person not said murder being justified not having a strict yes/no. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your opinion is not contradictory to what they were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calderis Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 And as I've brought up before in multiple places, good and evil, morality, you name it, are societal and psychological constructs that vary from culture to culture. They are necessary for civilization to exist, but they are not absolute. They are not even consistent within a given culture. If there is an absolute morality it's not shown itself in the human species. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Blacksmithki said: I think the morality they were talking of is people's opinion on whether said theoretical murder was justified being different person to person not said murder being justified not having a strict yes/no. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your opinion is not contradictory to what they were saying. Haha, these are hard things to talk about because you need examples and examples can get confusing too. Yes, people differ from person to person on whether a given act was justified. If one person says, that was a justified killing and the next says, no, it was murder, ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. I mean, virtually all murderers say "they deserved it..." "it wasn't my fault..." "you'd've done it too..." or something like that, something to say that what they did wasn't evil. But they did it. Societies look and try to split hairs and tell the difference. The point is, either it was a justified killing or not, regardless of whether or not the person FELT justified. I mean, to take it to one of the worst people imaginable, Hitler thought he was justified and right and moral. I don't care what he thinks, the truth is he wasn't, and that doesn't change. Now, people are obviously more complex than actions. Every person has redeemable and good qualities just as every person has vile and evil qualities. Actions are, generally, either moral or immoral. Again, I'm talking about the important ones, rape, murder, theft, etc. Sanderson says he doesn't think about the shards as either good or evil. I don't know if he includes the shard-holder in that or just the intent. Is Rayse good or evil vs is Odium itself good or evil? I tend to think of hatred/wrath as a good thing if it is turned towards evil, and a bad thing if it is turned elsewhere. Quote @Calderis If there is an absolute morality it's not shown itself in the human species. 100% to that. I still think it exists. Edited October 20, 2017 by bo.montier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bo.montier said: Haha, these are hard things to talk about because you need examples and examples can get confusing too. Yes, people differ from person to person on whether a given act was justified. If one person says, that was a justified killing and the next says, no, it was murder, ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. I mean, virtually all murderers say "they deserved it..." "it wasn't my fault..." "you'd've done it too..." or something like that, something to say that what they did wasn't evil. But they did it. Societies look and try to split hairs and tell the difference. The point is, either it was a justified killing or not, regardless of whether or not the person FELT justified. I mean, to take it to one of the worst people imaginable, Hitler thought he was justified and right and moral. I don't care what he thinks, the truth is he wasn't, and that doesn't change. Now, people are obviously more complex than actions. Every person has redeemable and good qualities just as every person has vile and evil qualities. Actions are, generally, either moral or immoral. Again, I'm talking about the important ones, rape, murder, theft, etc. Sanderson says he doesn't think about the shards as either good or evil. I don't know if he includes the shard-holder in that or just the intent. Is Rayse good or evil vs is Odium itself good or evil? I tend to think of hatred/wrath as a good thing if it is turned towards evil, and a bad thing if it is turned elsewhere. What I find really interesting is how in theory the perfect response to any such action is irrelevant to the morals of the original action and is only relevant to the morals of future actions. If jailing an innocent has the greatest reduction in amoral actions and increase in moral ones then despite a basic view saying it's terrible and amoral, and it is, it would be the most moral option. (This is of course an absurdly improbable scenario) Edited October 20, 2017 by Blacksmithki 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calderis Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Blacksmithki said: What I find really interesting is how in theory the perfect response to any such action is irrelevant to the morals of the original action and is only relevant to the morals of future actions. If jailing an innocent has the greatest reduction in amoral actions and increase in moral ones then despite a basic view saying it's terrible and amoral, and it is, it would be the most moral option. Which goes right back to how morality is decided by the consensus view of a society, and not what is actually the best course of action. What is right and wrong in most situations only becomes clear in hindsight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawnhargreaves Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Calderis said: good and evil, morality, you name it, are societal and psychological constructs that vary from culture to culture. They are necessary for civilization to exist, but they are not absolute. They are not even consistent within a given culture. This theme seems quite central to the ideas Brandon is exploring in Stormlight. Multiple orders of Radiants, all powered by different oaths. Different oaths lead to different and sometimes conflicting priorities. There is only one Honor, but more than one equally valid way to be honorable. We saw Kaladin struggle with exactly this sort of inconsistency in WoR. He eventually chose the Windrunner answer, but the other option wasn't presented as necessary wrong, just wrong for him. Adolin for instance is making very different choices, following a different code of honor. Dalinar or Shallan, different yet again. On a more extreme level, we have people like Amaram, Taravangian, Szeth (and perhaps Gavilar?). They're doing things that seem highly suspect if not fully evil/immoral, yet are driven by strong internal moralities. I may not be comfortable with all the eggs they are breaking along the way, but to them these are prices worth paying for goals that they consider important and honorable. I was very interested to read the scene where Kaladin interacted with Roshone, and see how his growth and changing goals led to a very different behavior than I would have guessed. Prediction: this was foreshadowing for a future scene where Kaladin realizes that he needs to put differences aside and cooperate with Amaram toward what turns out to be a shared goal. Edited October 20, 2017 by shawnhargreaves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawnhargreaves Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, bo.montier said: Morality is pretty black and white for MOST of the important things. If you're talking about modesty standards, who cares, but if you're talking about whether or not killing that person was murder, well, there's a right and a wrong answer. I think Stormlight argues otherwise... Should Kaladin have let Moash kill Elhokar? Should Adolin have killed Sadeas? Should Szeth have stayed true to his Oathstone, even when this required him to kill so many? Is Taravangian justified in killing so many, if that is the only way to save a huge number more? I have my opinions about all these, as do all of the characters in Stormlight, but I'm honestly not sure what Brandon himself believes. I think he is doing an incredible job of presenting the complexity of such choices, with compelling rationales for multiple conflicting points of view. This is a big part of what makes the books so interesting to me! Edited October 20, 2017 by shawnhargreaves 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreith Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, shawnhargreaves said: I think Stormlight argues otherwise... Should Kaladin have let Moash kill Elhokar? Should Adolin have killed Sadeas? Should Szeth have stayed true to his Oathstone, even when this required him to kill so many? Is Taravangian justified in killing so many, if that is the only way to save a huge number more? I have my opinions about all these, as do all of the characters in Stormlight, but I'm honestly not sure what Brandon himself believes. I think he is doing an incredible job of presenting the complexity of such choices, with compelling rationales for multiple conflicting points of view. This is a big part of what makes the books so interesting to me! If you don't ascribe to a Supreme force arbitrating morality (which I actually do), then practical morality changes with scope. Headhunting cannibals find it morally wrong to kill and/or eat members of their own tribe, but it's expected that they do those things to others. It's Kaladin's internal monologue when they're going back for Dalinar after Sadeas's betrayal "Us and them". We see his scope expand to not just Bridge 4, but a particular group of lighteyes. Then we see it expand again when he includes Elhokar. Now it's expanding again to include the former Parshmen which he'd already begun considering at the end of WoK. If he had truly believed and not accepted lighteyes can be good people, then he might have been morally acceptable just saving Bridge 4. As understanding of other cultures increases and internalization of similarities occurs, moral considerations expand to include new groups. Szeth is an interesting case, because I think until he was convinced that he was in fact not Truthless, he was morally obligated to keep his oath. His scope only encompassed the Shin because that's all he was considering. While he viewed himself very negatively, he saw everyone else as beneath him as evidenced by his eventual rationalizations that their deaths wee their own fault for not being able to kill him. of the examples above, Szeth is the only one who I accept as arguably moral though he perpetrated actions we recognize as immoral Edited October 20, 2017 by Wreith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawnhargreaves Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Wreith said: If you don't ascribe to a Supreme force arbitrating morality (which I actually do), then practical morality changes with scope. But here's the fascinating thing about Stormlight: there absolutely is an external force arbitrating morality, at the same time as this changes with scope! It's pretty clear that the rules of the Radiant oaths are fixed (most likely by Honor, although I don't think we know that for sure yet). Kaladin can only advance when he speaks the right oaths. When he betrays them, Syl dies. We see Syl desperate for him to find and speak the words, but unable to tell him what those are. There is no relative morality going on here. And yet, we see many versions of what is honorable being interpreted in different ways by different people. And we have evidence (such as from the WoR epigraphs about the various Radiant orders) that each order saw things in quite different ways, enough so that it sometimes led to conflict between the orders. All following an externally arbitrated path, but all different. And I suspect all equally valid. Edited October 20, 2017 by shawnhargreaves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreith Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, shawnhargreaves said: But here's the fascinating thing about Stormlight: there absolutely is an external force arbitrating morality, at the same time as this changes with scope! It's pretty clear that the rules of the Radiant oaths are fixed (most likely by Honor, although I don't think we know that for sure yet). Kaladin can only advance when he speaks the right oaths. When he betrays them, Syl dies. We see Syl desperate for him to find and speak the words, but unable to tell him what those are. There is no relative morality going on here. And yet, we see many versions of what is honorable being interpreted in different ways by different people. And we have evidence (such as from the WoR epigraphs about the various Radiant orders) that each order saw things in quite different ways, enough so that it sometimes led to conflict between the orders. All following an externally arbitrated path, but all different. And I suspect all equally valid. I really think that the case with Elhokar is a little different. I think if Kaladin hadn't made the promise to protect the king, it wouldn't have been a betrayal of oath to let Moash kill him. Just because we become aware at that point that that is the exact point of the next oath doesn't mean to mea that Kaladin was bound to it yet. Now that he is, that would be a consideration, but I think Syl's near death experience was due to the conflicting oaths, not the lack of action to save Elhokar itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Wheeler Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 hours ago, shawnhargreaves said: I think Stormlight argues otherwise... Should Kaladin have let Moash kill Elhokar? No. The king had done some things wrong, but we see that not only is he aware of this, he's actively, sincerely working to improve. Quote Should Adolin have killed Sadeas? Yes. Unlike Elhokar, Sadeas had no intention of changing his ways. He persisted in seeing everything through the lens of opportunities for personal gain, no matter who gets harmed along the way--which is as close to an objective definition of "evil" as I think is possible to formulate--and he made it abundantly clear to Adolin that he was never going to change. And since the harm that he was willing to cause to others included (and had included in the past) seeing them dead, he needed to be killed. Quote Should Szeth have stayed true to his Oathstone, even when this required him to kill so many? No, and frankly I'm completely mystified that he (or any Truthless) actually did, because the state of being Truthless makes no sense at all and is absolutely insane, at least insofar as it's been explained to us. It essentially consists of telling someone that because they have committed such a heinous crime, they are to be punished by being put in a position of immense trust and required to adhere to an extremely strict law, where they will almost certainly end up in a position in which, if they are to obey this requirement, they will have no choice but to commit sinful acts, and yet they are told that the sin remains upon their own heads. How is any of that anything but a big, tangled mass of contradictions? Quote Is Taravangian justified in killing so many, if that is the only way to save a huge number more? Is it the only way? One of the most disturbing things about the Diagram cult (out of so many to choose from!) is the way they're relying on Death Rattles for supplementary information, while knowing that the source of the Death Rattles is a spren of Odium. For a plan whose entire authority is literally derived from nothing more than "this is a really, really smart plan," no one seems to realize just how dumb that is or consider the possibility that their enemy could have a way of feeding them misinformation! If Sadeas needed to die, then I think Taravangian does too. I just hope Dalinar (or someone in his camp) catches on before he can cause too much trouble... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted October 23, 2017 Report Share Posted October 23, 2017 On October 20, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Mason Wheeler said: No. The king had done some things wrong, but we see that not only is he aware of this, he's actively, sincerely working to improve. Yes. Unlike Elhokar, Sadeas had no intention of changing his ways. He persisted in seeing everything through the lens of opportunities for personal gain, no matter who gets harmed along the way--which is as close to an objective definition of "evil" as I think is possible to formulate--and he made it abundantly clear to Adolin that he was never going to change. And since the harm that he was willing to cause to others included (and had included in the past) seeing them dead, he needed to be killed. No, and frankly I'm completely mystified that he (or any Truthless) actually did, because the state of being Truthless makes no sense at all and is absolutely insane, at least insofar as it's been explained to us. It essentially consists of telling someone that because they have committed such a heinous crime, they are to be punished by being put in a position of immense trust and required to adhere to an extremely strict law, where they will almost certainly end up in a position in which, if they are to obey this requirement, they will have no choice but to commit sinful acts, and yet they are told that the sin remains upon their own heads. How is any of that anything but a big, tangled mass of contradictions? Is it the only way? One of the most disturbing things about the Diagram cult (out of so many to choose from!) is the way they're relying on Death Rattles for supplementary information, while knowing that the source of the Death Rattles is a spren of Odium. For a plan whose entire authority is literally derived from nothing more than "this is a really, really smart plan," no one seems to realize just how dumb that is or consider the possibility that their enemy could have a way of feeding them misinformation! If Sadeas needed to die, then I think Taravangian does too. I just hope Dalinar (or someone in his camp) catches on before he can cause too much trouble... 1st considering how often the king messes up it's plausible that the world would be better off if he died and Dalinar took over. 2nd yah, Sadeas really deserved that honestly, nothing else could reasonably be done. 3rd it's not a position of "immense trust", they have seven other honorblades and no doubt have more experience with them Incase the truthless goes rogue. And based on the fact that we have seen no evidence at all of anyone remotely like the stories of the assassin in white, it would appear to be a pretty good deterrent. 4th do you honestly think that on any day at all of any intelligence he didn't consider that? Not all the of the Unmade are capable of this, for all we know the death rattles are not an active effect, the thrill seems to be a passive aura of that unmade not some active thing where it chooses who to give it to. Also, as far as we know, his end goal is to unite the world to save a fraction of humanity, a goal that a bunch of people on other threads have compared to cultivation especially as the whole thing was created thanks to the old magic who gave him this when he asked for the capacity to protect humanity, all in all this seems like cultivation's plan for saving humanity from odium and the champion seems like honor's. 5: the original point of these examples are that they are not definitive as to what should have been done, the first is just unclear, the third seems bad but is exactly what a skybreaker would do, and the fourth is an example of the ends justifying the means, a philosophy accepted by multiple orders of the Knights radiant but despised by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvisual Haze Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 I think the radiant spren may just have a blind spot in general where they assume anything they don't recognize is a Voidspren. From Shallan's chapter today: Quote She finished her sketch, then tipped it toward Pattern, holding the sketchbook with her sleeved safehand. He rippled up from his post to inspect her drawing: the slot obstructed by a mashed-up figure with bulging, inhuman eyes. “Mmmm,” Pattern said. “Yes, that is correct.” “It has to be some kind of spren, right?” “I feel I should know,” Pattern said. “This… this is a thing from long ago. Long, long ago…” Shallan shivered. “Why is it here?” “I cannot say,” Pattern replied. “It is not a thing of us. It is of him.” Notice how Pattern jumps from admitting he doesn't know what the weird "spren" is (I think a kandra is a good possibility here), to assuming that it comes from Odium. Pattern and Syl might be suffering from an Us versus Them mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yata Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 19 minutes ago, Subvisual Haze said: I think the radiant spren may just have a blind spot in general where they assume anything they don't recognize is a Voidspren. From Shallan's chapter today: Notice how Pattern jumps from admitting he doesn't know what the weird "spren" is (I think a kandra is a good possibility here), to assuming that it comes from Odium. Pattern and Syl might be suffering from an Us versus Them mentality. But they are able to feel that something isn't of "us" (from Honor & Cultivation) and in a three Shards context. If you are not of H&C....you are of Odium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeldancer Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 On 10/20/2017 at 1:00 PM, bo.montier said: Ha, as you may have picked up from other topics, I'm on the other side of these things. Morality is pretty black and white for MOST of the important things. If you're talking about modesty standards, who cares, but if you're talking about whether or not killing that person was murder, well, there's a right and a wrong answer. It may not be easy to find that answer, but it's there. So what if you killed someone while not wearing anything? Hmmm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Steeldancer said: So what if you killed someone while not wearing anything? Hmmm So many replies, so few of them appropriate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvisual Haze Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 30 minutes ago, Yata said: But they are able to feel that something isn't of "us" (from Honor & Cultivation) and in a three Shards context. If you are not of H&C....you are of Odium. Which one of those 3 is Nightblood from? Not from Honor and Cultivation...must be from Odium!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 Just now, Subvisual Haze said: Which one of those 3 is Nightblood from? Not from Honor and Cultivation...must be from Odium!!!!! They would probably think that yes. What is your argument? Nightblood is an anomaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yata Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Subvisual Haze said: Which one of those 3 is Nightblood from? Not from Honor and Cultivation...must be from Odium!!!!! It's probably how it will go...but Nightblood will feel for them still wronger and alient than a Voidspren. Edited October 24, 2017 by Yata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts