[OB] Oathbringer chapters 28-30

[bo.montier]

17 hours ago, maxal said:

 

Realistically speaking, Dalinar succeeding upon his first trial is not entirely plausible. He was a warlord and he did built himself a name by slaughtering people: having the world readily join forces with him wouldn't have made for great story telling. So it isn't so much I want Dalinar to fail, it is more he needs to fail. He needs to make amends for the man he once was and in this optic it was great to read Amaram calling Dalinar out for being a hypocrite because he is one. How can he demand Amaram is to be trialed for crimes he is guilty of having committed himself? How does he justify himself getting away from it? 

 

I genuinely don't think Dalinar's crimes are similar to Amaram. Killing your own men by accident in battle is called friendly fire, and it's punishable, but not at the same level as wilfully killing your own men to steal from them. NOT the same at all. 
Killing people in battle is still different from killing them in cold blood, even if the battle itself was not a Just War situation.
Now, if he killed the boy to get the shard...Well now, that's a horse of a different color.

BUT, people change. Amaram hasn't, yet, if he ever will. Dalinar has. He's been spending the last 6 years trying to be a different person. He may still have amends to make, and I think he will make some of them, but he's NOT a hypocrite. A person who has become better and now holds people to a higher standard isn't a hypocrite. A person who says it's OK for me to do it but not for you IS. Dalinar has openly talked about how his past was wrong, which means he has acknowledge the fault.

[Toaster Retribution]

4 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

If there is a christian-like god, he'll see that you tried your best and forgive you.

This is what I hope. Unfortunately, I am a bit of a pessimist on these kinds of topics, but the non-pessimistic part agrees.

46 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

He chooses to do the right thing consistently, even when no one would question him doing the wrong thing, especially considering his past. 
Those Choices are what make him a different person than Amaram or Mr. T.

The thing is that T and Amaram (especially T) considers their view of the world to be right. That was quite clear in the hanging hogmen discussion in this weeks Dalinar chapter. I don't think you can call T a worse person than Dalinar based on this. They both do what they think is right, and the fact that we happen to agree with Dalinar doesn't make T a worse person.

2 hours ago, Rasha said:

but I think that religion doesn't change the nature of men.

I respectfully disagree. I am religious, and I am very sure about that I would be a worse person than I am now if I hadn't been religious. 

[Fringe]

Maybe someone already posted about this.. What do you guys think Renarin was about to say in this part? Not far along on Oaths? Shielded by the Stormfather?

 

“What is it?” Renarin whispered. “Glys is frightened, and won’t speak.”

“Pattern doesn’t know,” Shallan said. “He calls it ancient. Says it’s of the enemy.”

Renarin nodded.

“Your father doesn’t seem to be able to feel it,” Shallan said. “Why can we?”

“I… I don’t know. Maybe—”

“Shallan?” Adolin said, looking out of the room, his faceplate up. “You should see this.”

[Kingsdaughter613]

11 minutes ago, SLNC said:

Personal experience? A bit. Not really DID, but depression. Which is also why I might be a bit opposed to what is "traditional practice" in treating mental problems, I have some bad experiences.

I'm just interested in how the human psyche works, I guess.

That’s part of what I love about art therapy. It’s not so much ‘traditional practice’ but it has so many applications and can be used by nearly everyone. Art is a universal language and that’s why I love it so much.

[Dlyol]

Without taking sides it feels odd to me that this discussion of whether there can be absolute moral truth is so dependent on the questions about Christian theology given we can be fairly confident Christ does not exist in the Cosmere. It seems to me like it would be more fruitful to look at some moral systems like Kant's categorical imperative or Utilitarianism which do not need to appeal to any particular claims about the divine to establish their claims to absolute moral truth. If Kant or Bentham or Mill are right then they would be right in the Cosmere as well by the nature of their arguments. (I write this as a fairly conventional mainline Christian by the way). 

[Aleksiel]

10 hours ago, Samaldin said:

We know the 4500 years since the last Desolations was much longer then there ever was between Desolations and after a Desolation we (at least sometimes) are looking at 90% of humanity gone. Humanity needs some time to repopulate, or there would simply not be enough humans for the species to survive, if the Desolations come too soon after each other.

We don't know if 90% of humanity died during Desolations unless I've missed a WoB. The exact quote is:

Quote

The Desolations are well named. I’ve heard initial counts. Eleven years of war, and nine out of ten people I once ruled are dead. 

Emphasis mine. Nohadon didn't rule all of humanity and he never claimed there were 90% casualties for the whole world each time. Also, 'nine out of ten' for his people might not have been accurate estimate. I think we are taking the quote too.

 

[Marethyu316]

42 minutes ago, Dlyol said:

Without taking sides it feels odd to me that this discussion of whether there can be absolute moral truth is so dependent on the questions about Christian theology given we can be fairly confident Christ does not exist in the Cosmere. It seems to me like it would be more fruitful to look at some moral systems like Kant's categorical imperative or Utilitarianism which do not need to appeal to any particular claims about the divine to establish their claims to absolute moral truth. If Kant or Bentham or Mill are right then they would be right in the Cosmere as well by the nature of their arguments. (I write this as a fairly conventional mainline Christian by the way). 

It's hard for people to not approach a philosophical discussion like this from their own perspective, at least initially. A few of the participants felt that their Christian faith informed their understanding of morality in the books; I think that makes sense, but I think everyone also was willing to see that others wouldn't necessarily approach the question in the same way.

By the way, Kant's theories are pretty well rooted in Christian theology, if I remember correctly from philosophy class 20 years. I think it makes more sense to be honest about where we're all coming from when discussing the book, while not trying to impose our beliefs on the characters or fellow readers; at least that's how I intended to approach the discussion.

[bo.montier]

1 hour ago, Toaster Retribution said:

The thing is that T and Amaram (especially T) considers their view of the world to be right. That was quite clear in the hanging hogmen discussion in this weeks Dalinar chapter. I don't think you can call T a worse person than Dalinar based on this. They both do what they think is right, and the fact that we happen to agree with Dalinar doesn't make T a worse person.

I respectfully disagree. I am religious, and I am very sure about that I would be a worse person than I am now if I hadn't been religious. 

I'm imposing my morality on them, for sure. I think they are wrong in their actions objectively. I don't understand or agree with a "ends justify the means" morality. I'm much more on the "No good end can be achieved by dishonorable means" end of things (Dalinar, quoting Way of Kings, somewhere in Way of Kings...)

I would also be a much worse person if I wasn't religious...Actually, I'm about 90% sure I would have committed suicide several years ago.

[Toaster Retribution]

29 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

I'm imposing my morality on them, for sure. I think they are wrong in their actions objectively. I don't understand or agree with a "ends justify the means" morality. I'm much more on the "No good end can be achieved by dishonorable means" end of things (Dalinar, quoting Way of Kings, somewhere in Way of Kings...)

I would also be a much worse person if I wasn't religious...Actually, I'm about 90% sure I would have committed suicide several years ago.

I just wanted to point out that Amaram and T being bad is hard to argue for morality-wise, since their views are so differebt from ours.

I'm glad you have religion.

[mariapapadia]

32 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

I'm imposing my morality on them, for sure. I think they are wrong in their actions objectively. I don't understand or agree with a "ends justify the means" morality. I'm much more on the "No good end can be achieved by dishonorable means" end of things (Dalinar, quoting Way of Kings, somewhere in Way of Kings...)

I would also be a much worse person if I wasn't religious...Actually, I'm about 90% sure I would have committed suicide several years ago.

Oiiii! That took a dark turn ! You can't do that at least until the Stormlight Archive is finished  My biggest fear nowadays, is not death, but dying before I get to read all the books  Some would say I am not right in the head

[StormingTexan]

On another note I saw Brandon's tweet that Oathbringer has the most audible pre-orders in history. I guess there are a lot more rabid fans out there. Can't wait to see what other records it breaks. 

[Toaster Retribution]

Just now, StormingTexan said:

On another note I saw Brandon's tweet that Oathbringer has the most audible pre-orders in history. I guess there are a lot more rabid fans out there. Can't wait to see what other records it breaks. 

I heard that it is one of the largest fantasy books ever.

[StormingTexan]

5 minutes ago, mariapapadia said:

My biggest fear nowadays, is not death, but dying before I get to read all the books  Some would say I am not right in the head

OMG me too! Like I already have it planned out to plead to Brandon on my death bed to tell me how the Cosmere story ends  if it comes to that.

[mariapapadia]

2 minutes ago, StormingTexan said:

OMG me too! Like I already have it planned out to plead to Brandon on my death bed to tell me how the Cosmere story ends  if it comes to that.

the only motivation I have to start eating greens and hitting the gym 

[StormingTexan]

1 minute ago, mariapapadia said:

the only motivation I have to start eating greens and hitting the gym 

Truth

[king of nowhere]

2 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Quote

If there is a christian-like god, he'll see that you tried your best and forgive you.

This is what I hope. Unfortunately, I am a bit of a pessimist on these kinds of topics, but the non-pessimistic part agrees.

 

If instead of a christian god there is an evil god then you are screwed no matter what you do; you may as well do your best. If there is a super-lawful god, sort of like nale, then you have really no way to know what god actually wants you to do. You may end up screwed whatever you do, but doing your best gives you more chances anyway. If there is an uncaring god, one who may care about humankind as a whole but gives no more attention to individuals than a gardener gives to a single blade of grass, then it won't probably matter for the afterlife, and you should do your best. If there isn't an omnipotent god but there are spirits and such, then nobody knows the answer, but you still need to do something, you may as well have your try.

This is the main reason I stopped looking at religion for moral guidance. there are lots of religions, and all contradict each other on everything but the simplest questions. Believing in an intangible something greater than me requires a leap of faith, but it's fairly easy. Believing that among all hundreds of religion the one I pick will have figured out that something and all others won't requires a much bigger leap of faith. I can make a leap of faith, not two.

2 hours ago, Dlyol said:

Without taking sides it feels odd to me that this discussion of whether there can be absolute moral truth is so dependent on the questions about Christian theology given we can be fairly confident Christ does not exist in the Cosmere. It seems to me like it would be more fruitful to look at some moral systems like Kant's categorical imperative or Utilitarianism which do not need to appeal to any particular claims about the divine to establish their claims to absolute moral truth. If Kant or Bentham or Mill are right then they would be right in the Cosmere as well by the nature of their arguments. (I write this as a fairly conventional mainline Christian by the way). 

there are already enough ifs and buts in this discussion to not wanting to further complicate it, but I tried to give an answer above.

29 minutes ago, StormingTexan said:

OMG me too! Like I already have it planned out to plead to Brandon on my death bed to tell me how the Cosmere story ends  if it comes to that.

So I'm not the only one...

[Calderis]

On the morality debate and religion, as has been brought up already I'm an atheist. I don't, however, believe that my perception is infallible. So while I don't believe there is a God, the possibility that one could exist despite what I see as a distinct lack of evidence, is not lost on me. That said, I would like to share my favorite quote, which I recently learned is falsely attributed to Marcus Aurelius.

"Live a good life. If there are gods, and they are just, they will not care how devoutly you worshipped them, but will welcome you based on the virtues by which you lived. If they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

And therein lies my issue with the idea of an absolute morality. I don't see it as possible for an absolute morality to ever be truly just. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Calderis

[Storyspren]

3 hours ago, Fringe said:

Maybe someone already posted about this.. What do you guys think Renarin was about to say in this part? Not far along on Oaths? Shielded by the Stormfather?

 

“What is it?” Renarin whispered. “Glys is frightened, and won’t speak.”

“Pattern doesn’t know,” Shallan said. “He calls it ancient. Says it’s of the enemy.”

Renarin nodded.

“Your father doesn’t seem to be able to feel it,” Shallan said. “Why can we?”

“I… I don’t know. Maybe—”

“Shallan?” Adolin said, looking out of the room, his faceplate up. “You should see this.”

I'm so suspicious of the stormfather possibly not being on the same side as syl and pattern. (Assuming they are on the same side, which I'm not convinced of either).

1 hour ago, StormingTexan said:

OMG me too! Like I already have it planned out to plead to Brandon on my death bed to tell me how the Cosmere story ends  if it comes to that.

We will all have to build a convalescent home near wherever Brandon lives and as fans acquire terminal illnesses or otherwise near end of life, they can go live there for ease of pleading and deathbed charity information sharing. Obviously there will have to be a staff of not only doctors and nurses, but a military style internet police dedicated to making sure there are no unauthorized info leaks. 

[Rasha]

5 hours ago, Dlyol said:

Without taking sides it feels odd to me that this discussion of whether there can be absolute moral truth is so dependent on the questions about Christian theology given we can be fairly confident Christ does not exist in the Cosmere. It seems to me like it would be more fruitful to look at some moral systems like Kant's categorical imperative or Utilitarianism which do not need to appeal to any particular claims about the divine to establish their claims to absolute moral truth. If Kant or Bentham or Mill are right then they would be right in the Cosmere as well by the nature of their arguments. (I write this as a fairly conventional mainline Christian by the way). 

 

Utilitarianism is not very useful here. The basic tennet of utilitarianism, is that good actions are actions that maximize utility. Expecting utilitarism to define what is moral is a circular argument. What is moral is what maximize utility. How to maximize utility ? Well that depends of what you value above all else. What do you value ? Well that depends of your morality.
Mill has a view of Utility that is one of a liberal (and I mean a 19th century liberal, not a US democrat). For Mill, to maximize utility, you have to maximize individual interest. For him, the public interest is no other than the sum of all the private interests. Thus, according to Mill an ideal utilitarist society is an individualist society. Of course, we now know that maximizing individualism in the hope of greater common utlity is utter rubish. If everyone only acts upon his personal utility, then society is globally screwed. Plus this theory was rebutted by both Kant and Arendt, with very convincing arguments.

Kant argued that the human mind creates the structure of human experience and that reason is the source of morality. He argued that hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. Kant is a bit the Father of Moral Relativism. He develops an exemple of the deontological theory, which states that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty (Categorical Imperative). On what is duty:

Spoiler

Perfect duty

According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of private property, but were A universalized, then there could be no private property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself.

In general, perfect duties are those that are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being.

Imperfect duty

Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason, but which allow for desires in how they are carried out in practice. Because these depend somewhat on the subjective preferences of humankind, this duty is not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally binding. As such, unlike perfect duties, you do not attract blame should you not complete an imperfect duty but you shall receive praise for it should you complete it, as you have gone beyond the basic duties and taken duty upon yourself. Imperfect duties are circumstantial, meaning simply that you could not reasonably exist in a constant state of performing that duty. This is what truly differentiates between perfect and imperfect duties, because imperfect duties are those duties that are never truly completed. A particular example provided by Kant is the imperfect duty to cultivate one's own talents.

Ethical Essentialism, is the basis of the position adopted by monotheistic religions on Morality. The view of Morality by Chrisitanism dates back to the 13th century by Aquinas and Augustus. These two authors found the Basics concepts of Essentialism, created by Aristotle and Plato and attempted to reconcile Christian Theology with the theory.

 

Spoiler

[Definitions not from me]:

Ethical relativism and ethical essentialism are two different schools of belief about the nature of ethics. Almost everyone who thinks about it will probably find that they are already in one of the two camps, even if they haven’t fully defined it that way for themselves, and even if they haven’t thought about the matter very consciously.

Ethical essentialism, in other words, believes that some actions are good or bad in themselves, in their essence, even if some cultures do not yet recognize those actions as good or bad. According to ethical essentialism, cultures can be mistaken about their ethical beliefs. Cultures can make mistakes. Cultures can get it wrong, i.e., they can fail to recognize which actions are right or wrong, and it may be only in the long view of history that we can look back and recognize how cultures were mistaken.

Ethical relativism, on the other hand, would find it difficult to say that some cultures are mistaken in their ethical beliefs. Ethical relativism believes that a culture’s moral beliefs are what constitute morality. There is no external standard against which to measure the validity of a culture’s moral beliefs, says ethical relativism.

Ethical essentialism, though, says that there are certain actions which are truly and essentially wrong (slavery may be an example; torture may be an example), or truly and essentially right (treating people with respect may be an example), and that it is only when a culture recognizes this that they become a morally just culture.

Ethical relativism would say that the concept of “morally just culture” is a flawed concept because it implies the existence of an external, essential moral standard against which cultures can be measured. Ethical relativism says there is no such thing as an objective, essential standard for measuring a culture’s “goodness.” All standards, it would say, are culture bound, hence relative.

 

I think there is a divide between the two positions that we will not be able to gap with rationnal arguments. Beside, refuting Essentialism is well outside my capacities. But if Aquinas and Augustus never existed, we probably would not have this debate as the Christian view on Morality may have been very different and may even not have been based on Divine Essence.

 

2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

This is the main reason I stopped looking at religion for moral guidance. there are lots of religions, and all contradict each other on everything but the simplest questions. Believing in an intangible something greater than me requires a leap of faith, but it's fairly easy. Believing that among all hundreds of religion the one I pick will have figured out that something and all others won't requires a much bigger leap of faith. I can make a leap of faith, not two.

You phrased with much tact what I have not been able to say for fear of not being polite. Thanks.

 

4 hours ago, bo.montier said:

Actually, I'm about 90% sure I would have committed suicide several years ago.

If it is not too touchy a subject, could you elaborate on that point ? Of course you are free to tell me to storm off with my (very) unpolite request, but I am curious. I had some thoughts in the past, but managed to get rid of them, hopefully permanently.

 

5 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I respectfully disagree. I am religious, and I am very sure about that I would be a worse person than I am now if I hadn't been religious. 

 

I am glad that for you Religion has been a positive influence. Although we could debate that "better or worse person" is a matter of morality and... No, I am  kidding, and it is a bad jest, Congratz on your progress.

 

As for paradise, I would like to say that I do not want to commit my actions in view of getting a higher reward once I am dead. I find the notion of acting good to expect divine rewards profoundly cynical (careful now I don't say that every Christian or monotheist does that), and I would rather like to find out that Paradise doesn't exist. I would be perfectly happy to slide into nothingness. Of course this is my personal view and as such it is subject to subjectivity (ah!). 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Rasha

[jamskinner]

Would it not be better to have this morality debate in its own thread?

[SilverTiger]

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

On the morality debate and religion, as has been brought up already I'm an atheist. I don't, however, believe that my perception is infallible. So while I don't believe there is a God, the possibility that one could exist despite what I see as a distinct lack of evidence, is not lost on me. That said, I would like to share my favorite quote, which I recently learned is falsely attributed to Marcus Aurelius.

"Live a good life. If there are gods, and they are just, they will not care how devoutly you worshipped them, but will welcome you based on the virtues by which you lived. If they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

And therein lies my issue with the idea of an absolute morality. I don't see it as possible for an absolute morality to ever be truly just. 

I think that's called "baptism of desire", which means if you really, truly were a good person, then your desire for righteousness is a baptism of sorts, and you will go to heaven. I think. And this is Roman Catholic view, by the way.

3 hours ago, bo.montier said:

I would also be a much worse person if I wasn't religious...Actually, I'm about 90% sure I would have committed suicide several years ago.

I can empathize with you. I have been suicidal, and my religion is what keeps me going when I start heading back to that dark place.

[maxal]

9 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Shallan may have PTSD; she may not. Not everyone with trauma has PTSD. I would need to meet and conduct a preliminary interview at the minimum before giving her any sort of diagnosis.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate? I am curious. I have no medical training, I just want to know what is said on the matter. I thought "lasting trauma" was the same as "PTSD".

[Dlyol]

@Rasha I wasn't really making a point about the relative merits of those moral systems but that discussing them is far more profitable in the Cosmere context than is discussing Christian morality. For one thing suggesting that Christian morality can exist without the Fall and the Crucifixion is extremely heretical and the people who are making arguments from their faith on here really should be thinking that through. As for the relative merits of the arguments: I haven't thought through the implications of the Categorical Imperative enough to make an informed judgement although I would like it to be true as it provides a nice basis for rights theory, I think you treat Mill unfairly - the Harm Principle seems like a fairly obvious and good dividing line between public and private spheres and while I disagree with Bentham we know from the study of economics that (certain cognitive biases notwithstanding) utility maximisation is how people actually operate - to my mind its churlish to summarily dismiss the morality system that is the revealed preference of human beings in most situations

@Marethyu316 Sure, people want to approach these things from a perspective they find familiar and comfortable but I, as a Christian, think its extremely wrong to do so in this context. Christian morality only makes sense, can only make sense, if two things are true; that we are fallen, sinful creatures and that Christ died to save us from those sins. In the Cosmere, as far as we know, there was no fall and no crucifixion. Not only does that eliminate any foundation for Christian morality but to try to reinstate Christian morality without those events is, in fact, heresy because it argues that the problem of evil is not a result of the fall, it suggests grace and salvation are possible without Christ etc etc.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Dlyol

[Marethyu316]

19 minutes ago, Dlyol said:

 

@Marethyu316 Sure, people want to approach these things from a perspective they find familiar and comfortable but I, as a Christian, think its extremely wrong to do so in this context. Christian morality only makes sense, can only make sense, if two things are true; that we are fallen, sinful creatures and that Christ died to save us from those sins. In the Cosmere, as far as we know there was no fall and no crucifixion. Not only does that eliminate any foundation for Christian morality but to try to reinstate Christian morality without those events is in fact heresy because it argues that the problem of evil is not a result of the fall, it suggests grace and salvation are possible without Christ etc etc.

I think you might be slightly overstating the case, but I take your point that it would be wrong to presume Christian doctrine in a world specifically created to not have such a doctrine. However, I don't think anyone was specifically arguing that the characters needed to be following Biblical principles or arguing about applying Biblical morality directly, though. I think people were trying to connect the dilemmas brought up in the text and faced by the characters to their own lives and philosophies. 

Edit: I actually felt some initial unease making some of my arguments for the exact reasons you bring up, but as I said I think the discussion was intentionally expanding beyond a pure discussion of the in-world actions and was exploring the reasons for our own reactions to Nohadon's dilemma and the responses of Dalinar and Taravangian.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Marethyu316

[Borio Singaldi]

2 hours ago, SilverTiger said:

6 hours ago, bo.montier said:

I would also be a much worse person if I wasn't religious...Actually, I'm about 90% sure I would have committed suicide several years ago.

I can empathize with you. I have been suicidal, and my religion is what keeps me going when I start heading back to that dark place.

I see I'm not alone in this. Seriously, me too, guys. If it weren't for my religion, I probably wouldn't be alive today, and if I was, I would likely have been perpetually depressed, antisocial, dispassionate toward others, and addicted to who knows what. Heck, I constantly have suicidal thoughts and feelings of self-loathing even though I am religious. This is why I'm glad to be a member of the LDS Church. It's because of that that I know that none of us are ever alone and that we are all loved. There's always hope for tomorrow and we can find happiness in giving it to others. Knowing these things and trying to live them are part of what's kept me alive.

(Sorry if that seemed a little too preachy, everybody.)