[OB] Oathbringer chapters 28-30

[hoser]

2 hours ago, Dahak said:

I suspect mink is Alethi for any small fur bearing mammal like chicken is their word for bird. So mustelids, rats, hamsters, cats, possibly even Jack Russel terriers are all mink.

Pedantically, since the original quote has a mink with a rat in its mouth, I'm saying that rats are not minks to Dalinar.  Otherwise, the quote would  be something like "mink with a mink in it's mouth," which wouldn't convey the correct idea at all. 

Yeah, big fan of all non-skunk members of the weasel family.  please forgive my interruption. 

[Fifth of Daybreak]

4 minutes ago, Islington said:

I feel like this proves MY point lol. 

I feel like it fits all of your criteria. A character who has lived as a paragon of good for his whole life and is regarded as such commits a terrible terrible act and argues that he did the correct thing and had a moral position for stopping a worse thing. Am I misunderstanding the scenario you put forth? Watchmen spoilers

Spoiler

 

 

[Starla]

35 minutes ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

Watchmen spoilers

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I've never seen Watchmen, so when I looked at your spoiler picture all I thought was "Adolin in shardplate."

[Mestiv]

20 hours ago, maxal said:

and I love the idea of endless dark airing tunnels which could hide all sorts of creatures. Am I the only one who thought of Alien 2?

No, you're not. Now we just wait for them to find some strange eggs in a room next to the pillar... 

[Islington]

34 minutes ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

I feel like it fits all of your criteria. A character who has lived as a paragon of good for his whole life and is regarded as such commits a terrible terrible act and argues that he did the correct thing and had a moral position for stopping a worse thing. Am I misunderstanding the scenario you put forth? Watchmen spoilers

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I don't know if Mr T is moral. I would say no, but that's because I have a strong belief in God and that colors my view of morality pretty heavily. For instance, I would say that nothing but supernatural assistance can elevate man from a fallen creature. I admit that, and it makes me judge Taravangian much more harshly than most, because of his feigned sadness. I'm not saying he's failing; he probably believes he's compassionate. I would say his compassion is a sallow, pallid thing though, starved of actions to feed it. But. 

I would insist that Taravangian actions, when viewed away from intentions, which most agree don't matter as much when the rubber hits the road, are evil. Mass murder, kidnapping, abuse...you can't really say "But I did it for a good reason" and make the families of those victims believe you're morally righteous. I believe when morality enters the conversation, the victim is the judge. 

Just imagine if it came out today that the Queen of England strangled a man to death. Or anyone in power, honestly. They'd go to jail (hopefully, though that's another issue). At the very least public outcry would be tremendous. Even if they were a wonderful, previously moral ruler. That one act perverts their entire legacy. That's just the way humans think. (And personally it is the way I believe sin works. Your intentions and past are obliterated when sin enters. It taints your morality). 

 

Honestly, I used to be all about the Windrunners, but having this intensely stimulating conversation is really making me think I'd wanna hang with (sane) Nalan in the Skybreaker clubhouse. 

[Toaster Retribution]

41 minutes ago, Mestiv said:

No, you're not. Now we just wait for them to find some strange eggs in a room next to the pillar... 

This is interesting. Do you think Regrowth could heal away a Chestburster?

@Islington I believe in God too (I'm catholic, dunno about you). But I don't know if I agree with your stance here. I don't know what Jesus opinion would be, but for me, intent weighs heavier than actions. I believe King Ts actions to be evil, but his intent to be good, and as such, I see him as more of a good person than an evil. 

[Calderis]

4 minutes ago, Islington said:

I don't know if Mr T is moral. I would say no, but that's because I have a strong belief in God and that colors my view of morality pretty heavily. For instance, I would say that nothing but supernatural assistance can elevate man from a fallen creature. I admit that, and it makes me judge Taravangian much more harshly than most, because of his feigned sadness. I'm not saying he's failing; he probably believes he's compassionate. I would say his compassion is a sallow, pallid thing though, starved of actions to feed it. But. 

I don't believe his sadness is feigned. 

I also believe that the Diagram is a product of Cultivation, so his "elevation" is supernatural assistance. The Shards are not good or evil, and the Diagram reeks of Cultivation's intent. 

16 minutes ago, Islington said:

I would insist that Taravangian actions, when viewed away from intentions, which most agree don't matter as much when the rubber hits the road, are evil. Mass murder, kidnapping, abuse...you can't really say "But I did it for a good reason" and make the families of those victims believe you're morally righteous. I believe when morality enters the conversation, the victim is the judge. 

And I wholeheartedly disagree. You can take any action, and when put in the right context, with the right intent, and it is the right choice. Any view of morality as a black and white is either a hypothetical, or willfully ignoring circumstances. 

18 minutes ago, Islington said:

Just imagine if it came out today that the Queen of England strangled a man to death. Or anyone in power, honestly. They'd go to jail (hopefully, though that's another issue). At the very least public outcry would be tremendous. Even if they were a wonderful, previously moral ruler. That one act perverts their entire legacy. That's just the way humans think. (And personally it is the way I believe sin works. Your intentions and past are obliterated when sin enters. It taints your morality). 

And again it would depend on the context. If she just strangled a man because she could... Yeah that's bad. 

If she was being assaulted? If she were putting a dying man out of his misery at his request? If she was held at gunpoint? 

30 minutes ago, Islington said:

Honestly, I used to be all about the Windrunners, but having this intensely stimulating conversation is really making me think I'd wanna hang with (sane) Nalan in the Skybreaker clubhouse. 

This assumes that the legal system is just. If you were required to hold to a legal system you felt was immoral, I doubt you'd think agree. The only oath of the Skybreakers we know is "I will hold the law above all else." it makes no mention of the morality or justice of said laws. 

[Islington]

@Calderis I would completely disagree with your view of morality, then. Moral relativism in general I find questionable. I think it seeks to undermine and degrade morality in general as a concept by implying that if your argument or situation is bad enough, any action is excusable, which...nah. I'd just disagree. Which is fine, everyone can think whatever about morality. I won't yuck your yum, not my job. 

Mr T, to extend the analogy, isn't strangling someone in self defense, he's strangling someone so that he can take over his house, because he needs to be in control; someone's going to blow it up next week. But honestly, I think we're going to have to accept that we won't agree here, since we're coming from pretty much opposite corners. 

 

@Toaster Retribution I won't pretend to know God's mind, but while I'd say that intentions are important when your actions have unforseen consequences, Taravangian is saying, at his bottom line, that morality is not important, results are. I believe that Jesus would disagree, but that's something taken in faith (though I could drum up some scripture and context that would support that), so I don't really know how to "argue" it or even what the goal of that argument would be. To convince you? I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking beyond the idea that I think Taravangian is a capital B Bad Dude, though understandable. I get his reason, I just disagree. 

[Toaster Retribution]

9 minutes ago, Islington said:

@Toaster Retribution I won't pretend to know God's mind, but while I'd say that intentions are important when your actions have unforseen consequences, Taravangian is saying, at his bottom line, that morality is not important, results are. I believe that Jesus would disagree, but that's something taken in faith (though I could drum up some scripture and context that would support that), so I don't really know how to "argue" it or even what the goal of that argument would be. To convince you? I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking beyond the idea that I think Taravangian is a capital B Bad Dude, though understandable. I get his reason, I just disagree. 

I disagree with King Ts actions as well, and I agree that we shouldn't try to push our views onto one another. I discuss things like this because I find it fun. What I think is not that it is good to do what T does, but more along the lines of that T isn't evil or a bad human being. This is my way of seeing it, and I'm in a minority on the Shard when it comes to seeing it that way :-)

[Calderis]

@Islington you're correct, we do approach it from opposite corners.

What you see as attempting to undermined morality itself, I see as attempting to apply actual morality, rather than arbitrary rules. 

Moral absolutes, in my opinion, eventually find everyone guilty. Claiming any rule as an absolute, outside of the physical laws of nature, creates situations in which right action is judged as incorrect. 

Moral absolutes are typically created as a means of social control rather than a true desire for morality and justice. It's much easier to paint the things you find undesirable as wrong and deserving of punishment if everyone agrees with you. 

[Steeldancer]

59 minutes ago, Islington said:

@Calderis I would completely disagree with your view of morality, then. Moral relativism in general I find questionable. I think it seeks to undermine and degrade morality in general as a concept by implying that if your argument or situation is bad enough, any action is excusable, which...nah. I'd just disagree. Which is fine, everyone can think whatever about morality. I won't yuck your yum, not my job. 

Mr T, to extend the analogy, isn't strangling someone in self defense, he's strangling someone so that he can take over his house, because he needs to be in control; someone's going to blow it up next week. But honestly, I think we're going to have to accept that we won't agree here, since we're coming from pretty much opposite corners. 

 

@Toaster Retribution I won't pretend to know God's mind, but while I'd say that intentions are important when your actions have unforseen consequences, Taravangian is saying, at his bottom line, that morality is not important, results are. I believe that Jesus would disagree, but that's something taken in faith (though I could drum up some scripture and context that would support that), so I don't really know how to "argue" it or even what the goal of that argument would be. To convince you? I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking beyond the idea that I think Taravangian is a capital B Bad Dude, though understandable. I get his reason, I just disagree. 

I'm with you here dude on the whole morality thing. 

[Marethyu316]

1 hour ago, Islington said:

I don't know if Mr T is moral. I would say no, but that's because I have a strong belief in God and that colors my view of morality pretty heavily. For instance, I would say that nothing but supernatural assistance can elevate man from a fallen creature. I admit that, and it makes me judge Taravangian much more harshly than most, because of his feigned sadness. I'm not saying he's failing; he probably believes he's compassionate. I would say his compassion is a sallow, pallid thing though, starved of actions to feed it. But. 

I would insist that Taravangian actions, when viewed away from intentions, which most agree don't matter as much when the rubber hits the road, are evil. Mass murder, kidnapping, abuse...you can't really say "But I did it for a good reason" and make the families of those victims believe you're morally righteous. I believe when morality enters the conversation, the victim is the judge. 

Just imagine if it came out today that the Queen of England strangled a man to death. Or anyone in power, honestly. They'd go to jail (hopefully, though that's another issue). At the very least public outcry would be tremendous. Even if they were a wonderful, previously moral ruler. That one act perverts their entire legacy. That's just the way humans think. (And personally it is the way I believe sin works. Your intentions and past are obliterated when sin enters. It taints your morality). 

 

Honestly, I used to be all about the Windrunners, but having this intensely stimulating conversation is really making me think I'd wanna hang with (sane) Nalan in the Skybreaker clubhouse. 

You say that the victim is the judge of the morality of an act. However, failing to act can also have consequences, so which victims are we going to ask? If as a leader you decide not to act, and then your people are victimized, haven't you failed as their leader? 

The Allies in WW2 fire bombed cities in Europe and Japan and the US dropped two atomic bombs on two of the remaining cities that hadn't been bombed. They believed that they were fighting for something that justified mass killing and targeting of civilian infrastructure at the very least (they did drop leaflets telling people to leave at least some of the time.) In the end, those leaders had to look out for the interests of their people, and felt they couldn't allow their consciences (many acknowledged how awful they felt about it) to trump their responsibilities to their own citizens and soldiers. History may judge them harshly, and God may as well, but what good is a leader who isn't willing to shoulder some of the burden to protect their people? It's much easier for us to say don't target civilians when we have smart GPS guided weapons, and yet no system is perfect and yet most would agree it is sometimes necessary to take the risk of hurting the innocent in the name of the greater good.

It doesn't mean that morality has no place, but I think I agree with Nohadon that every situation is unique and needs to be approached on a case by case basis. Easy answers let us absolve ourselves of the guilt of living in the real world, where there are both evil people and where hurting innocents is sometimes unavoidable. What I appreciate about Taravangian is that, I think, he honestly does feel bad about it, and doesn't seem to make excuses or justifications. He just believes he is doing what is necessary and is willing to suffer the consequences. There is something heroic about being willing to shoulder the burden that is needed to protect others.

Of course, that is only justified if you are actually protecting others. I question whether he is actually right, though. I don't necessarily believe that the Diagram is the totality of what Nightwatcher gave him as a boon and his trust in it might be misplaced. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Marethyu316
attempted to edit for clarity and typos

[Nymeros]

5 hours ago, dendrophobe said:

I think it's safe to say that we don't only have 500 years to play with.

 

That's awesome if still valid. When was this info provided by Sanderson?

7 hours ago, Aminar said:

Snip

Clearly you and I have different opinions on the matter so....great.

[Ethan_sedai]

those metal doors on the library... they hadn't rusted, even though so many other things in the tower had. also, why would the doors to a library need to be metal? I think these doors are aluminum!

anybody else think this? anybody freaking out like I am at the Implications of Aluminum doors on the library?

[Scriptorian]

*Deep breath* Okay, jumping in on the discussion of morality!

My beliefs on the subject ultimately boil down to: absolute truth and morality exist, but we humans are often so bad at discerning them, that we just have to muddy through and, as Nohadon says, take things on a case-by-case basis. I leave it to God to clean up when our judgement falls short (which is often). (As an aside @Calderis, I find your statement that "Moral absolutes ... eventually find everyone guilty" very interesting, because that's exactly what my theology says. Hence the need for a perfect Savior to redeem everyone. )

Concerning Taravangian: I think what we need to acknowledge is that, in my opinion, his long-term decision making ability is significantly impaired. Think about it: he oscillates between sociopathy and genius to over-sensitivity and near-vegitativness. While not often to these extremes, his perceptions of the world still shifts daily.  As someone with a bipolar disorder, I can bear witness to how shifting mental states can seriously mess-up how you see things long-term (forgetting even the short-term problems). Think about how someone with depression can lose the ability to see positive things in the world. Now replace that with a megalomaniacal delusion that you can make all the best decisions for everyone in the world (and that you could convince people of this). This is not conducive to making sound rational decisions, no matter how "smart" you are. 

Consider Taravangian's own observation that, at extreme levels of intelligence, he can be nearly as "stupid" as at the same level of dimwitted-ness. Now consider that the Diagram was made when he was transcendentally brilliant. The fact that Average!Taravangian puts so much faith in the Diagram is what causes me the most concern. He doesn't even really know what the end-goal of the Diagram is; he doesn't remember writing it, and has himself acknowledged how much his world-view can shift with his intelligence. (Note that this changes somewhat if the Diagram was the direct result of outside influence, but what's important here is Taravangian's viewpoint).

This is where I struggle. He obviously feels guilt over his actions and feels he is beyond redemption, but, as others have pointed out, this does nothing to change his behavior. As far as we know, even at his most empathetic, he doesn't do anything to alter course. This consistent, blind faith in an entity he knows to be a sociopathic megalomaniac is...if not evil in and of itself is either bafflingly arrogant or foolhardy. Then again, some of the decisions I've made while hypomanic probably appeared a little arrogant and foolhardy...The Point (TM) is that, no matter how good an idea it seemed at the time, I should not have spent $100+ dollars on GURPS supplements, and Taravangian should not be following the mad rantings of his super-powered evil side.

Looping back to my original point, I don't think we quite have the necessary perspective to judge Good or Evil in this case. He's effectively suffering from a mental disorder impairing his judgment as well as what is effectively religious zealotry, both of which make it harder to adequately weigh his intentions. So, for now I'll go with "greatly misguided, and in need of a good butt-kicking". Cudos to Sanderson for writing such interesting characters that make us confront and examine our own morality.

As far as him becoming a radiant, I'd like to think that the entry requirements result in radiants tending to be better people overall...but I would not be at all surprised to see him end up as a Bondsmith.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Scriptorian
Them typos...

[Marethyu316]

1 hour ago, Islington said:

I won't pretend to know God's mind, but while I'd say that intentions are important when your actions have unforseen consequences, Taravangian is saying, at his bottom line, that morality is not important, results are. I believe that Jesus would disagree, but that's something taken in faith (though I could drum up some scripture and context that would support that), so I don't really know how to "argue" it or even what the goal of that argument would be. To convince you? I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking beyond the idea that I think Taravangian is a capital B Bad Dude, though understandable. I get his reason, I just disagree. 

I feel weird diving deep into a discussion of Christian morality in a fantasy book, but you brought it up and I find this topic compelling.

No action (or lack of action) we take in the real world is devoid of negative, harmful consequences, even with the best of intentions, because we can't know the all the ramifications of our choices, even when we have the best of intentions. To me, sometimes you must take the best action that you can, given what you know, and accept the consequences of those actions.

St. Augustine takes this up in his book the City of God. That book deals with dilemmas early Christians faced in trying to live out their faith in real world, or what he called the City of Man. He asks whether it wouldn't be better for Christians to withdraw from the world to keep themselves pure, because by interacting with the City of Man, they couldn't escape participating in the evil that happens there. 

For example, even the best of judges doesn't always know whether the person before them is innocent or guilty. This means that sometimes (too often no doubt) an innocent person is punished (or in his analogy tortured), but a judge still has a responsibility to maintain justice and order in society. He argues that the world is better off that good people are judges, even though the job sometimes forces them to harm innocent people.

Augustine argues that it is important both to recognize that sometimes such things are necessary and moral, and yet "none the less condemn human life as miserable." His point being that we should try to avoid such injustices, but accept that they are an inevitable and yet necessary part of being a moral person in the real world. Finally, he argues that it would be worse to shrink form that responsibility, because you don't want to get your hands dirty, and allow people of lesser character take your place. Rather, "cry to God, 'Deliver me from my necessities!'" In other words, accept that sometimes you will do things that are wrong, maybe even appallingly so, because to not do so would be worse. 

 

[StormingTexan]

25 minutes ago, ethan_sedai said:

those metal doors on the library... they hadn't rusted, even though so many other things in the tower had. also, why would the doors to a library need to be metal? I think these doors are aluminum!

anybody else think this? anybody freaking out like I am at the Implications of Aluminum doors on the library?

Didn’t Adolin cut through them though? I thought a sharblade couldn’t cut through aluminum or at least Brandon hasn’t confirmed it can and dodged the question. 

So Brandon picked aluminum on purpose right? Because of aluminum hats and crazy people? 

Edited November 2, 2017 by StormingTexan

[Islington]

19 minutes ago, Marethyu316 said:

 Snip

 

This is sort of what I'm saying. His actions may be necessary. Even compelling. I may even do the exact same thing, given the situation. The utility of his actions do not lend them morality, though. Just because he saves people in the long run, which I'm not convinced he will/that is his actual goal, does not mean he's right in his actions. 

@Scriptorian On the subject of the diagram, I asked Brandon if Taravangian was actually more intelligent or if he were just less connected/more connected to the spiritual realm on his slider, and he said I was on the right track. It just seemed weird to me because usually in the real world if you get smarter you further see the consequences of your actions and are better able to help others. Despite what Hollywood shows, being smart doesn't make you a jerk usually. 

 

@Marethyu316 I don't think his goal is what he thinks it is. Allowing another to take power would fit his goal just as well, but the Diagram says to kill Dalinar if he is able to unify Alethkar/the Vorin Kingdoms. He seems to instead be amassing his own power, because Taravangian Knows Best. 

[Steeldancer]

32 minutes ago, Scriptorian said:

*Deep breath* Okay, jumping in on the discussion of morality!

My beliefs on the subject ultimately boil down to: absolute truth and morality exist, but we humans are often so bad at discerning them, that we just have to muddy through and, as Nohadon says, take things on a case-by-case basis. I leave it to God to clean up when our judgement falls short (which is often). (As an aside @Calderis, I find your statement that "Moral absolutes ... eventually find everyone guilty" very interesting, because that's exactly what my theology says. Hence the need for a perfect Savior to redeem everyone. )

Concerning Taravangian: I think what we need to acknowledge is that, in my opinion, his long-term decision making ability is significantly impaired. Think about it: he oscillates between sociopathy and genius to over-sensitivity and near-vegitativness. While not often to these extremes, his perceptions of the world still shifts daily.  As someone with a bipolar disorder, I can bear witness to how shifting mental states can seriously mess-up how you see things long-term (forgetting even the short-term problems). Think about how someone with depression can lose the ability to see positive things in the world. Now replace that with a megalomaniacal delusion that you can make all the best decisions for everyone in the world (and that you could convince people of this). This is not conducive to making sound rational decisions, no matter how "smart" you are. 

Consider Taravangian's own observation that, at extreme levels of intelligence, he can be nearly as "stupid" as at the same level of dimwitted-ness. Now consider that the Diagram was made when he was transcendentally brilliant. The fact that Average!Taravangian puts so much faith in the Diagram is what causes me the most concern. He doesn't even really know what the end-goal of the Diagram is; he doesn't remember writing it, and has himself acknowledged how much his world-view can shift with his intelligence. (Note that this changes somewhat if the Diagram was the direct result of outside influence, but what's important here is Taravangian's viewpoint).

This is where I struggle. He obviously feels guilt over his actions and feels he is beyond redemption, but, as others have pointed out, this does nothing to change his behavior. As far as we know, even at his most empathetic, he doesn't do anything to alter course. This consistent, blind faith in an entity he knows to be a sociopathic megalomaniac is...if not evil in and of itself is either bafflingly arrogant or foolhardy. Then again, some of the decisions I've made while hypomanic probably appeared a little arrogant and foolhardy...The Point (TM) is that, no matter how good an idea it seemed at the time, I should not have spent $100+ dollars on GURPS supplements, and Taravangian should not be following the mad rantings of his super-powered evil side.

Looping back to my original point, I don't think we quite have the necessary perspective to judge Good or Evil in this case. He's effectively suffering from a mental disorder impairing his judgment as well as what is effectively religious zealotry, both of which make it harder to adequately weigh his intentions. So, for now I'll go with "greatly misguided, and in need of a good butt-kicking". Cudos to Sanderson for writing such interesting characters that make us confront and examine our own morality.

As far as him becoming a radiant, I'd like to think that the entry requirements result in radiant's tending to be better people overall...but I would not be at all surprised to see him end up as a Bondsmith.

 

Hey Scriptorian. 

Let's just take note that our friend Calderis over here is an Atheist. So... the whole God thing won't totally work. 

That being said, i totally agree with you. Morality does exist. Not from an arbitrary Shard, but an actual true God. 

However, i do find this divide absolutely fascinating. That atheists seem to immediately no longer believe in an absolute morality... idk. Its just really interesting. I also love that Brandon's Books can inspire such a discussion, despite him being very much religious!

[Islington]

8 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

Hey Scriptorian. 

Let's just take note that our friend Calderis over here is an Atheist. So... the whole God thing won't totally work. 

That being said, i totally agree with you. Morality does exist. Not from an arbitrary Shard, but an actual true God. 

However, i do find this divide absolutely fascinating. That atheists seem to immediately no longer believe in an absolute morality... idk. Its just really interesting. I also love that Brandon's Books can inspire such a discussion, despite him being very much religious!

Well, to be fair, if you're an atheist, morality is a human invention. So it wouldn't be absolute, it would be mutable by its very nature. That makes perfect sense to me. It's the only logical conclusion I think you can come to, honestly. 

[Borio Singaldi]

On 10/31/2017 at 5:27 PM, CaptainRyan said:

If we are really lucky, we might even stretch out the theorizing to two weeks!

Then comes the long night wherein only really, really, really weird theories that are obviously wrong will be posted because everyone is over-analyzing some sentence combined with a WoB that may or may not be related.

Exactly. That's the Shard for you.

There's no need to overthink everything. But for some reason, we do it anyway.

Edit: Hey, @The One Who Connects, could this maybe be an option for the site's tagline/slogan?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Firerust
Bolding words because maybe site slogan?

[Blightsong]

I love that this forum is a place where discussions rooted in belief don't immediately turn to crap-slinging matches . This is actually an interesting discussion!

@Steeldancer and @Islington, if you can imagine yourself without your belief, does that version of you still believe in absolute morality? Why?

And I have the opposite questions for you, @Calderis.

edit: Ninja'd 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Blightsong

[Calderis]

2 hours ago, Steeldancer said:

However, i do find this divide absolutely fascinating. That atheists seem to immediately no longer believe in an absolute morality... idk. Its just really interesting. I also love that Brandon's Books can inspire such a discussion, despite him being very much religious!

Because without a divine dictate to set morality, where does it come from? 

Morality is, in my view, a construct that is absolutely necessary for society to exist, but it's still a construct. 

An absolute morality requires an external force to decide what is right and what is wrong. I reject that idea. That doesn't mean that I think it's alright to go out and kill people wantonly or steal, or abuse. 

There will always be repercussions to actions, and even the best case scenario is never going to be the optimal outcome for everyone. 

The very idea of a morality that would find someone at fault for actions that, in context, are the best possible thing you could do, seems absurd to me. 

If killing is an absolute wrong, morally, then that should apply across the board, even in religions though, this doesn't hold. Wars happen that people blessed by God kill their enemies and it is condoned. 

Something is an absolute or it isn't. I believe that it isn't. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Calderis

[Marethyu316]

3 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

Hey Scriptorian. 

Let's just take note that our friend Calderis over here is an Atheist. So... the whole God thing won't totally work. 

That being said, i totally agree with you. Morality does exist. Not from an arbitrary Shard, but an actual true God. 

However, i do find this divide absolutely fascinating. That atheists seem to immediately no longer believe in an absolute morality... idk. Its just really interesting. I also love that Brandon's Books can inspire such a discussion, despite him being very much religious!

I'm a Christian, but I find the resort to an "absolute morality" to be unhelpful when it comes to the things we're discussing. The absolute standards of God condemn everyone, hence "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "There is no one righteous, not even one." That leads to a need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ for all, but it doesn't mean that there is a clear answer to every moral question we face.

How would you answer the dilemma from chapter 28? It is all well and good to say that God knows who the innocent one is, but the landlord in the dilemma isn't omniscient, but nevertheless has the responsibility of administering justice. Appealing to "absolute morality" in that context only serves to make us feel better, not to actually make our actions more moral. 

 

[Islington]

Just now, Blightsong said:

I love that this forum is a place where discussions rooted in belief don't immediately turn to crap-slinging matches . This is actually an interesting discussion!

@Steeldancer and @Islington, if you can imagine yourself without your belief, does that version of you still believe in absolute morality? Why?

And I have the opposite questions for you, @Calderis.

No. I struggled with Conduct Disorder as a kid and teenager before becoming saved by grace. Church and counseling have shaped who I am in ways I really don't think I'll ever know. I imagine I would be a very different person.