[OB] The Skybreakers don't actually care about Justice

[Fulminato]

“Who has jurisdiction over this land, Szeth-son-Neturo? A man can rule his home until the citylord demands his taxes. The citylord controls his lands until the highlord, in turn, comes to him for payment. But the highlord must answer to the highprince, when war is called in his lands. And the king? He … must answer to God.”
“You said God was dead.”
“A god is dead. Another won the war by right of conquest

Oathbringer Chapter 116 "Alone"

The winner write the history, and the law of the land. Odium killed honor, his army now march to conquerer all roshar, so the new law of roshar is the law of odium and his singer.

don't see any fault in this argument. if you are bind to the law, and only the law, not a moral code don't see any problem. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Fulminato

[aemetha]

Can I just say that saying "That's nonsensical..." is clearly an aggressive statement about an argument being made, while saying "You're nonsensical..." is an aggressive statement about a person. Changing "That's nonsensical..." to "I disagree, that doesn't make sense to me" is not less aggressive, the language is synonymous and the second option takes longer to type. Debate is by its nature adversarial, the line is crossed to insult when the debate moves from attacking argument to attacking people.

Regarding the Skybreakers, I think they are a perfect example of everything that is wrong about Shards. They uphold the laws to the extreme. They execute people arbitrarily for minor infractions. A procedural justice system makes allowances for the court to apply mercy, but the Skybreakers don't seem to adhere to that - penalty is always the maximum allowable for an offence. Honor is largely the personification of inflexibility and intolerance despite what positive attributes are assigned to him, the orders of radiants reflect that inflexibility, and with the Skybreakers that is applied to their role with the law.

10 minutes ago, Darvys said:

Nale himself cherry picks the crimes he's going to see punished, he explaines this by his being a Skybreaker of the Fifth Ideal but that wouldn't preclude a compulsion to see laws enforced if such a compulsion existed.

Every lawman cherry picks the crimes they are going to see punished, because they cannot be everywhere to prevent every crime. They choose to focus on the most serious. In Nale's case the most serious is being a radiant. That's not a crime in all locations though. It's like taking a lawkeeper from their jurisdiction, and chasing a criminal to another jurisdiction. When he enters that new jurisdiction he is obligated to follow the laws of that jurisdiction. He is still pursuing the ideal of justice for both jurisdictions, and when it comes to prioritising who he pursues.

[Subvisual Haze]

The Skybreakers were likely a much more functional and moral order before Honor started circling the drain.  When Honor was still an active participant in affairs of humanity, he would have offered a higher/divine set of legal principles that would take precedence over the imperfect laws of men.  Unfortunately the highest authority the Skybreakers now have is Nale, who by his own admission is not right in the head.  I think we kind of see this reflected in the Urithiru gem archive: the Skybreakers and the Windrunners become increasingly bitter opponents around the same time that Honor is beginning to "change".  The Windrunner moral principles of protection can continue to function without Honor to guide them, but following "the law" as an abstract concept is very dependent on leadership.

I think Nale becoming a Skybreaker himself was also a mistake.  The Skybreakers were modeled on Nale's powers and reputation, Nale taking the 5th Oath to "become the law" when he already was regarded as such by humanity due to his status as a Herald may have done strange things to his thought processes.

[Leyrann]

10 minutes ago, aemetha said:

Debate is by its nature adversarial

That does not mean that there is no difference between a respectful debate ("I disagree because reasons"/"That's wrong because evidence") and a disrespectful debate ("that's nonsensical").

In fact, the defining difference between synonyms is often that one is more respectful than the other.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Leyrann

[bo.montier]

32 minutes ago, luminos said:

Okay, part 3


-The thing that Skybreakers seems to actually care about is not law or justice, but power.  They serve whatever or whoever is powerful enough to force their own arbitrary desires on others.  Someone with a commitment to procedural justice would not serve power blindly, but sometimes defy it on the grounds that those holding positions of authority were in defiance of the law.  A Skybreaker is someone who should be concerned that the ultimate legal authority correctly interprets the law, not merely that they claim to do so.
-I don't think Sanderson has a genuine understanding of the position he is attempting to portray, as it does not match what I have encountered in myself or others who actually hold the beliefs that Nale advocates.  I applaud him for trying, and recognize that creative work involves trying to portray an incredible number of people who hold positions and ideals that you do not truly understand. 
-Szeth saying an oath to follow Dalinar is pretty much the most horrifying thing a person can do.  It is a complete betrayal of law and order, and a devotion only to people wielding powerful influence.  Szeth and the Skybreakers are not lawmen, they are toadies.

To your 3 points

• Ultimately, laws are meaningless unless there is an entity or power to enforce them. Power is intrinsic to law, it is absolutely necessary for law to exist. If there is no power to enforce a law, there is no law. You're also adding words to the Skybreakers that they don't claim. "procedural justice" does NOT equate perfectly with LAW. You're drawing a false comparison. 
• Maybe you should consider that you don't hold the same beliefs that Nale & the Skybreakers do, rather than assuming Sanderson doesn't understand his own characters and their viewpoints.
• Dalinar in and of himself is one of the highest points of authority on Roshar and has, thus far through the series, had a very clear and accurate moral compass (though not in his former life). Swearing to follow him means that Szeth may end up being wrong, but in Szeth's mind he has a better chance of pursuing actual justice than swearing to almost anything else. 

 

[luminos]

I think the disconnect I'm having with some of these responses is the assumption that law descends from people in positions of power.  But this does not work either in the real world or in the context of what the Skybreakers claim to believe.  

If law is a bulwark against human fallibility, it cannot be the mere whims of a tyrant.  It has to be based on principles that derive not just from power or social influence, but something fundamental.  If someone follows the law to the point of madness, they might be willing to destroy society for the sake of upholding the conventions that society has agreed to follow for the sake of maintaining order.  But they would not be willing to uphold the will of a conqueror who considered conventions to be an obstacle to his rule.

[luminos]

1 minute ago, bo.montier said:

To your 3 points

• Maybe you should consider that you don't hold the same beliefs that Nale & the Skybreakers do, rather than assuming Sanderson doesn't understand his own characters and their viewpoints.

 

I definitely do not hold the same beliefs that the Skybreakers do.  But I do hold the beliefs the Skybreakers espouse.  I am trying to show that the two are incompatible

[Calderis]

32 minutes ago, luminos said:

-The thing that Skybreakers seems to actually care about is not law or justice, but power.  They serve whatever or whoever is powerful enough to force their own arbitrary desires on others.

This is not correct. Their third ideal is their own choice to swear to an external guide, be it a person, a nation, a written code, whatever. There is absolutely no requirement that this thing currently holds power. 

35 minutes ago, luminos said:

A Skybreaker is someone who should be concerned that the ultimate legal authority correctly interprets the law, not merely that they claim to do so.

They don't claim to though. Their oaths are not set up that way at all. Their second oath is about the law, and is superceded by the third. 

The Skybreakers are not what we have been led to believe. Procedural justice requires codified law and an actual procedural process. These things do not exist outside of Azir. 

The Skybreakers are nothing more than executioners sworn to Obey Nale. I hate everything about the order. 

[Darvys]

8 minutes ago, aemetha said:

Regarding the Skybreakers, I think they are a perfect example of everything that is wrong about Shards. They uphold the laws to the extreme. They execute people arbitrarily for minor infractions. A procedural justice system makes allowances for the court to apply mercy, but the Skybreakers don't seem to adhere to that - penalty is always the maximum allowable for an offence. Honor is largely the personification of inflexibility and intolerance despite what positive attributes are assigned to him, the orders of radiants reflect that inflexibility, and with the Skybreakers that is applied to their role with the law.

Nale addressed this issue previously, he used to be merciful where the laws permitted but then noticed that his mercy more often than not led to recidivism, so he started leaving corpses behind.

 

13 minutes ago, aemetha said:

Every lawman cherry picks the crimes they are going to see punished, because they cannot be everywhere to prevent every crime. They choose to focus on the most serious. In Nale's case the most serious is being a radiant. That's not a crime in all locations though. It's like taking a lawkeeper from their jurisdiction, and chasing a criminal to another jurisdiction. When he enters that new jurisdiction he is obligated to follow the laws of that jurisdiction. He is still pursuing the ideal of justice for both jurisdictions, and when it comes to prioritising who he pursues.

You took my statement a little out of context, i was arguing that Skybreakers were not bound to respond every time they're called upon to enforce a law, as those laws aren't always just.

[bo.montier]

1 minute ago, luminos said:

I definitely do not hold the same beliefs that the Skybreakers do.  But I do hold the beliefs the Skybreakers espouse.  I am trying to show that the two are incompatible

You uphold the beliefs that you espouse and then claim the skybreakers espouse them. I don't disagree that the two belief systems are incompatible. But you're reading YOUR beliefs into the skybreakers oaths & beliefs. What you have described here in this thread is NOT described anywhere by WoB, by characters, or otherwise. You've gone far beyond the oaths in your own beliefs, which is fine, but then you claim that is what the oaths meant in the first place, which does not seem to me to be a faithful interpretation of the order as presented in the books.

Edited November 21, 2017 by bo.montier

[luminos]

I kind of doubt Sanderson pulled his idea for the Skybreakers out of the aether, without attempting to portray them as a version of a real world ideology.  There words show an awareness of this ideology.  There actions do not.  I am disappointed that no one seems to care about the distinction.

[aemetha]

5 minutes ago, luminos said:

It has to be based on principles that derive not just from power or social influence, but something fundamental.

The law is precisely derived from power and social influence. The law isn't morality, it reflects the standards of the person or people who implemented it. Homosexuals are beaten or killed in some legal systems, there is nothing fundamental about that. It doesn't protect society from a threat. It doesn't corrupt society. It is a reflection of a prejudice held by those who made the law.

[Bacon]

It all comes down to how you define justice. I think all the orders pursue their own definition of justice. To the skybreakers, everything about morals is relative to each person's interpretation. So, they follow the letter of the law, which serves as a sort of compromise between different interpretations so that they could form into something resembling a society.

I don't agree with Brandon's decision to have them side with Odium though. It just doesn't track with enforcing current laws elsewhere. If their definition of what was right defaults to that of the original owners of the land, they should be trying out oust every last ruler and replace them with the descendants of the people who ruled that land originally, or at least as far back as they have records of (which would be around the time Nale became a herald). More than likely, it would be some darkeyes peasant somewhere. Or, they should be enforcing the dawnsinger laws everywhere they go in human civilization since they're now the earliest known inhabitants. 

[bo.montier]

5 minutes ago, Calderis said:

The Skybreakers are not what we have been led to believe. Procedural justice requires codified law and an actual procedural process. These things do not exist outside of Azir. 

The Skybreakers are nothing more than executioners sworn to Obey Nale. I hate everything about the order. 

I hate them as they are currently constituted. The law is not justice, but is an aid to justice. When law is followed without any care for actual justice it becomes a terrible, evil thing. I don't know if I could EVER approve of them, but we'll have to see where the order develops under Szeth.

 

2 minutes ago, luminos said:

I kind of doubt Sanderson pulled his idea for the Skybreakers out of the aether, without attempting to portray them as a version of a real world ideology.  There words show an awareness of this ideology.  There actions do not.  I am disappointed that no one seems to care about the distinction.

This is a really silly assumption, without some sort of support from Brandon himself. You may be right, but you have done little to nothing to prove your claim. All you have done is said "The Skybreakers say they believe what I believe but they really don't!"

I don't think they claim to uphold what you claim to uphold, so I don't think there is a distinction in the way you're talking about. 
 

[luminos]

It is absolutely a flaw to uphold justice and the law, while neglecting mercy.  The Skybreakers lack mercy, and this would be an excellent way to depict the failings of those who only care about the law.  The only thing that is missing is that the Skybreakers don't care about the law either.  They behave too much like real law enforcers, who swear oaths, but have greater loyalty to fraternity than the oaths they swore

[bo.montier]

1 minute ago, luminos said:

It is absolutely a flaw to uphold justice and the law, while neglecting mercy.  The Skybreakers lack mercy, and this would be an excellent way to depict the failings of those who only care about the law.  The only thing that is missing is that the Skybreakers don't care about the law either.  They behave too much like real law enforcers, who swear oaths, but have greater loyalty to fraternity than the oaths they swore

But their third oath...I mean, it specifically allows something like this...

Again, this is the whole point, they don't claim to uphold what you claim to uphold.

[AndrolGenhald]

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Or, they should be enforcing the dawnsinger laws everywhere they go in human civilization since they're now the earliest known inhabitants.

Isn't that exactly what Nale said they were going to do though?

[luminos]

Just now, bo.montier said:

But their third oath...I mean, it specifically allows something like this...

Again, this is the whole point, they don't claim to uphold what you claim to uphold.

I think we just understand their oaths differently.  Thats cool.  Maybe my opinion is idiosyncratic.  Hopefully I've expressed it well enough to say.

[bo.montier]

14 minutes ago, luminos said:

I think the disconnect I'm having with some of these responses is the assumption that law descends from people in positions of power.  But this does not work either in the real world or in the context of what the Skybreakers claim to believe.  

If law is a bulwark against human fallibility, it cannot be the mere whims of a tyrant.  It has to be based on principles that derive not just from power or social influence, but something fundamental.  If someone follows the law to the point of madness, they might be willing to destroy society for the sake of upholding the conventions that society has agreed to follow for the sake of maintaining order.  But they would not be willing to uphold the will of a conqueror who considered conventions to be an obstacle to his rule.

You're talking here about what the law SHOULD be, not what it is. In a feudal system the law is, with few limitations, what the local lord says it is. He in turn answers to his lord. 
If you are a tyrant, your word is law. 

The skybreakers never claim to uphold only just laws. They obey the law as it is, not as it should be. 

[Darvys]

Just now, luminos said:

I think we just understand their oaths differently.  Thats cool.  Maybe my opinion is idiosyncratic.  Hopefully I've expressed it well enough to say.

At no point did you address their oaths, maybe start there to explain the inconsistency you perceive ?

[Blacksmithki]

Please name one action taken by a skybreaker that contradicts what they consider to be the law of the land.

They side with Odium because he is in their eyes the rightful ruler of the land and therefore defines the law like in an absolute monarchy.

They take no illegal actions, they push the letter of the law but never break it.

And please don't try to name the example with the prison guy, you don't know what the law was there so you can't tell me he didn't break it and deserve execution.

[aemetha]

3 minutes ago, luminos said:

It is absolutely a flaw to uphold justice and the law, while neglecting mercy.

Right, it is a flaw. This is the enduring theme of the cosmere though, if you take any attribute that in combination with others is considered to be "good" then you end up with something corrupted. Honor didn't care about mercy. He didn't even care about the spirit of the oaths at the end according to the Stormfather. The Skybreakers are a facsimile of that same excessive devotion to a single shattered aspect.

[luminos]

Just now, bo.montier said:

You're talking here about what the law SHOULD be, not what it is. In a feudal system the law is, with few limitations, what the local lord says it is. He in turn answers to his lord. 
If you are a tyrant, your word is law. 

The skybreakers never claim to uphold only just laws. They obey the law as it is, not as it should be. 

This is a fundamental disagreement.   Law is not whatever the strongest bully says it is.  And I don't think the Skybreakers are the correct order to follow such a vision, if their rationale is that laws must be followed because human discernment is too easily deceived.

[bo.montier]

1 minute ago, luminos said:

I think we just understand their oaths differently.  Thats cool.  Maybe my opinion is idiosyncratic.  Hopefully I've expressed it well enough to say.

Yes to this. It seems to me you are reading far more into their oaths than is there. I think your idea about what the law SHOULD be is pretty accurate, but I don't think that's what the Skybreakers swear to.

[Blacksmithki]

2 minutes ago, luminos said:

This is a fundamental disagreement.   Law is not whatever the strongest bully says it is.  And I don't think the Skybreakers are the correct order to follow such a vision, if their rationale is that laws must be followed because human discernment is too easily deceived.

Look at any absolute monarchy, that is quite literally what the law is there. 

In fact, copy paste the definition of law and tell me it can't be what the strongest person says it is.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Blacksmithki