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

[Bacon]

Just now, AndrolGenhald said:

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

Not quite. What I mean is that even before the Everstorm appeared, they should have been enforcing the dawnsinger's original code of law even in human-held lands. That would probably also involve executing anyone owning or abusing Parshmen slaves. Nale obviously knew about the origins of humans on Roshar, so the translation wouldn't have been news to him at all.

[luminos]

1 minute ago, Blacksmithki said:

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

But we are disagreeing on basic premises.  If you are denying my conclusions, you haven't advanced an argument, you are just repeating the fact that we disagree.  Which I am happy to acknowledge.

[bo.montier]

1 minute 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.

"Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior"

That's pretty much it. There are good laws and bad laws, there are just laws and corrupt laws, but they are all laws. It being illegal to hide your Jewishness in Nazi Germany was a law. It being legal to own slaves in America prior to the Civil War was Law...
They're all laws.

You have no law if you don't have enforcement, and if you are capable of enforcing rules on an entire society those rules ARE laws.

That's not what the law SHOULD be, but it's what the law is.

[Darvys]

3 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.

This i believe is the root of your problem, your argument is disconnected from reality.

[aemetha]

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

What I mean is that even before the Everstorm appeared, they should have been enforcing the dawnsinger's original code of law even in human-held lands.

War and conquest is a legal form of ownership change. When humans came to rule those lands the right to set the laws of those lands changed to them.

[AndrolGenhald]

1 minute ago, Bacon said:

Not quite. What I mean is that even before the Everstorm appeared, they should have been enforcing the dawnsinger's original code of law even in human-held lands. That would probably also involve executing anyone owning or abusing Parshmen slaves. Nale obviously knew about the origins of humans on Roshar, so the translation wouldn't have been news to him at all.

Ah, got it. That is interesting then. Maybe he doesn't care so much about inheritance rights, but the rights of the actual Dawnsingers who were there at the time, and since the Fused are those Dawnsingers (or at least some of them are I think), it's only once they return that it matters?

[Bacon]

Just now, aemetha said:

War and conquest is a legal form of ownership change. When humans came to rule those lands the right to set the laws of those lands changed to them.

So then why side with them now that the humans are the rightful owners?

[Blacksmithki]

1 minute ago, bo.montier said:

"Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior"

That's pretty much it. There are good laws and bad laws, there are just laws and corrupt laws, but they are all laws. It being illegal to hide your Jewishness in Nazi Germany was a law. It being legal to own slaves in America prior to the Civil War was Law...
They're all laws.

You have no law if you don't have enforcement, and if you are capable of enforcing rules on an entire society those rules ARE laws.

That's not what the law SHOULD be, but it's what the law is.

Thank you, this is exactly what every single person here is trying to tell him, law is not what law should be.

the skybreakers don't care if a law is terrible, they follow it anyways.

[bo.montier]

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

So then why side with them now that the humans are the rightful owners?

Because HONOR himself died, therefore the conquest of Odium was complete in its most important aspect.

It's like checkmate in chess. There are still pieces that could move on the board, but the king is dead.

Edited November 21, 2017 by bo.montier

[Blacksmithki]

He would side with Odium now because he now is the righteous ruler of the lands after he killed Honor.

[luminos]

1 minute ago, bo.montier said:

"Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior"

This definition is too general to say which one of us is correct.  Can an absolute monarch be in violation of the law?  I say yes, others say no.  I think the definition can suit either argument.  Which is the flaw of using dictionary definitions for philosophical debates.  Dictionaries tell us what something is used to mean with enough precision to capture a large range of subtleties.  They don't tell us which philosophy has the correct understanding when more precise terms are required

[aemetha]

 

@BaconAre they? I think Odium's side controls more lands than those opposing him, and with that control they have the right to set the laws. This is an international conflict. Previously the Parshendi controlled no lands, and had no right to set the law, now they control huge swathes and much of the remainder is held by humans allied to their cause.

Edited November 21, 2017 by aemetha

[luminos]

2 minutes ago, AndrolGenhald said:

Ah, got it. That is interesting then. Maybe he doesn't care so much about inheritance rights, but the rights of the actual Dawnsingers who were there at the time, and since the Fused are those Dawnsingers (or at least some of them are I think), it's only once they return that it matters?

Thats... actually an interesting way to look at it.  I can see it.

[bo.montier]

Just now, luminos said:

This definition is too general to say which one of us is correct.  Can an absolute monarch be in violation of the law?  I say yes, others say no.  I think the definition can suit either argument.  Which is the flaw of using dictionary definitions for philosophical debates.  Dictionaries tell us what something is used to mean with enough precision to capture a large range of subtleties.  They don't tell us which philosophy has the correct understanding when more precise terms are required

We can't really have more of a conversation if you're unwilling to accept common definitions of terms. Part of the definition of Law has to do with enforcement. If you can enforce it on a society, it is a law. No one can enforce anything on an absolute monarch, so they cannot be in violation. They would be WISE not to violate what they set down, but they can just say, in that moment "but not for me..." and it is now legal. 

[luminos]

2 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

We can't really have more of a conversation if you're unwilling to accept common definitions of terms. Part of the definition of Law has to do with enforcement. If you can enforce it on a society, it is a law. No one can enforce anything on an absolute monarch, so they cannot be in violation. They would be WISE not to violate what they set down, but they can just say, in that moment "but not for me..." and it is now legal. 

Laws tend to be enforceable, though there will be exceptions of course. 

Are you sure you wish to state that anything which is enforceable is a law?  That would make it seem that the schoolyard bully who picks on someone weaker is enacting law in doing so.  I understand if that was not your argument, but if it is I want to make note of it

Edited November 21, 2017 by luminos

[Blacksmithki]

2 minutes ago, luminos said:

This definition is too general to say which one of us is correct.  Can an absolute monarch be in violation of the law?  I say yes, others say no.  I think the definition can suit either argument.  Which is the flaw of using dictionary definitions for philosophical debates.  Dictionaries tell us what something is used to mean with enough precision to capture a large range of subtleties.  They don't tell us which philosophy has the correct understanding when more precise terms are required

What this definition says:

A: Laws are rules

B: They are enforced by either government or society

C: Regulate behaviour

If it fits those three categories, it is a law. An absolute monarch sets the rules, therefore can technically break them, but can simply add that they don't apply to him.

And the title of this thread is correct, the Skybreakers couldn't care less about justice, but where have they ever claimed to? They only claim to follow the law, and they do.

[AndrolGenhald]

3 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

We can't really have more of a conversation if you're unwilling to accept common definitions of terms. Part of the definition of Law has to do with enforcement. If you can enforce it on a society, it is a law. No one can enforce anything on an absolute monarch, so they cannot be in violation. They would be WISE not to violate what they set down, but they can just say, in that moment "but not for me..." and it is now legal. 

Not sure I agree with that, I'd say we have laws that are next to impossible to enforce, but that are still considered laws. I think the difference that matters is that an absolute monarch can simply change the law post facto and exonerate themselves.

[Blacksmithki]

2 minutes ago, luminos said:

Laws tend to be enforceable, though there will be exceptions of course. 

Are you sure you wish to state that anything which is enforceable is a law?  That would make it seem that the schoolyard bully who picks on someone weaker is enacting law in doing so.  I understand if that was not your argument, but if it is I want to make note of it

You forget that it is enforced by either a GOVERNMENTAL, or SOCIETAL organization, a bully counts as neither.

[luminos]

I am going to go ahead and throw out a rough definition of what I say law is.  I know that some of you think this definition is incorrect, you don't need to tell me again.  I'm doing this so it can be clear where we contrast.

"Laws are the rules and procedures that society uses to determine whether a person is acting appropriately as a member of that society, and correct inappropriate behavior when necessary.  "

Power and authority play a role in law because they play a role in how society organizes itself, but ultimately, laws come from the same place that social power does.  So it is very possible to obtain social power, but you are still relying on the foundation beneath that power and thus law is something that you do not directly control

[Rainier]

2 hours ago, luminos said:

In essence, they are supposed to be champions of a purely procedural type of justice, sometimes to the point of madness.

I think this is the biggest misconception. Skybreakers are not about law, or justice, or truth, or righteousness. They are about understanding and internalizing the fallibility of humans and the mind. It's about recognizing that no matter who you are, you are flawed and biased, so you cannot be trusted to judge things like when to use your powers and to benefit whom. The whole point of Skybreakers is subsuming your own judgement to something greater, but definitely external. Whether that's law or not is beside the point. 

[aemetha]

1 minute ago, luminos said:

Power and authority play a role in law because they play a role in how society organizes itself, but ultimately, laws come from the same place that social power does.

Maybe this is where the conflict is arising. In some (and especially in feudalism) systems the vast majority of social power rests with the leader. This seems compatible with your view that the law derives from social power. The renaissance led to a redistribution of power from leaders to the people.

[luminos]

1 minute ago, aemetha said:

Maybe this is where the conflict is arising. In some (and especially in feudalism) systems the vast majority of social power rests with the leader. This seems compatible with your view that the law derives from social power. The renaissance led to a redistribution of power from leaders to the people.

You somehow read what I said and managed to think I said the complete opposite.  The law does not derive from social power.  I explicitly rejected that.

[Bacon]

6 minutes ago, AndrolGenhald said:

Ah, got it. That is interesting then. Maybe he doesn't care so much about inheritance rights, but the rights of the actual Dawnsingers who were there at the time, and since the Fused are those Dawnsingers (or at least some of them are I think), it's only once they return that it matters?

I didn't consider that. I'm not too sure what the fused actually are, but you may have something there if they are the dawnsingers who have become cognitive entities (maybe like Kelsier but tied to Braize like Odium?)

8 minutes ago, aemetha said:

 

@BaconAre they? I think Odium's side controls more lands than those opposing him, and with that control they have the right to set the laws. This is an international conflict. Previously the Parshendi controlled no lands, and had no right to set the law, now they control huge swathes and much of the remainder is held by humans allied to their cause.

I could see that as a reason they would defend Odium-controled lands from being attacked by humans. And also why they would defend human lands from being attacked by Odium. But Roshar doesn't have a singular ruler (yet), so it wouldn't line up with the Skybreaker's code of conduct to automatically imply that autonomous, independent nations were automatically conquered once Odium held the majority share of Roshar.

14 minutes ago, bo.montier said:

Because HONOR himself died, therefore the conquest of Odium was complete in its most important aspect.

It's like checkmate in chess. There are still pieces that could move on the board, but the king is dead.

Did Honor actually rule anything? My understanding is that he was more of a passive caretaker god who only helped humans fight Odium because he, himself was so focused on fighting Odium. After all, Odium already killed at least 3 shardholders and had his eye on Tanavast next. He was definitely the ruler of the heralds and to a lesser extent, the radiants. But they were all in turn, separate from the ruling classes of the rest of society after putting on those mantles.

[aemetha]

Just now, luminos said:

The law does not derive from social power.  I explicitly rejected that.

Then could you perhaps elucidate what you think the foundation for social power is? You seem to be referring to some amorphous ideal that is not actually reflected in any legal system, real or cosmeric.

[luminos]

Just now, aemetha said:

Then could you perhaps elucidate what you think the foundation for social power is? You seem to be referring to some amorphous ideal that is not actually reflected in any legal system, real or cosmeric.

Social power derives from society itself.  And no, I am not really interested in talking about social power by itself.  That would be a different topic, and not one I'd discuss in the present context.  I talk about it here merely to say that it is
A.) Different from the law
B.) That the law is from a deeper foundation that, and therefore cannot be dependent upon social power.