Dalinar swore the wrong Oaths? Kaladin Wangst. Adolin's Execution. Dividing Man from Dawnsinger...

[Aleksiel]

I have the obviously unpopular opinion Kaladin fully deserved some time in prison. He over-stepped his position many times; talked a lot when it wasn't his place and got really arrogant. The moment Adolin paused to catch his breath when he asked for his boon, Kaladin pushed forward and made a scene. Yes, Elhokar reacted poorly, but that doesn't mean Kaladin was a blameless victim here.

 

Dalinar did the right thing  by not interfering with his imprisonment. If even he, the king's uncle, who constantly speaks of uniting, undermined Elhokar's authority for such a matter like one guard, then Dalinar would appear a tyrant; someone trying to seize the king's power because he knows and exploits Elhokar's weaknesses. 

[Moogle]

Journey before destination means the ends doesn't justify the means. It does not mean the ends can be terrible so long as the methodology in getting there was right.

 

But... that's exactly what it means, according to Teft.

 

 

“Journey before destination. There are always several ways to achieve a goal. Failure is preferable to winning through unjust means. Protecting ten innocents is not worth killing one. In the end, all men die. How you lived will be far more important to the Almighty than what you accomplished.”

 

Failure is preferable to winning through unjust means. It is most certainly unjust to leave Amaram, a murderer, walking free. Under Teft's explanation, I am lead to believe that Elhokar's kingdom failing and civil war erupting is preferable to letting a murderer like Amaram go free.

 

I am indeed taking their philosophy to a "ridiculous extreme" by actually following what it says. Pretty much every philosophy leads to ridiculous situations, which is why I do not advocate following any one fully, particularly not the one espoused by Teft.

 

However, Kaladin cannot get out of things so easily, since he has a supernatural watcher looking over his shoulder at all times to make sure he doesn't bend his oaths, including the First Ideal. He can't bend his oath to protect those he hates just once for Roshone. Having sworn an oath to follow the First Ideal, I expect he has to actually follow it, which leads to the ridiculous civil war situation. If he doesn't have to follow it, I'd love to hear that.

 

If you're arguing Teft is wrong, that's alright by me. I'd prefer if the Radiants were able to have that liberal of an interpretation, but everywhere I see the First Ideal explained in the book, it takes the stance that civil war would be preferable to letting Amaram go free. What am I missing?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Moogle

[name_here]

I don't think prison was really an appropriate response in a more general sense, but it was a genuinely pretty stupid thing to do. Plus, he did slander high nobility (his allegations were true, but I don't think he could convince an impartial court with his lack-of-evidence) in front of hundreds if not thousands of people in a legal system where that does potentially carry the death penalty.

 

As for letting Amaram go free, Dalinar didn't really have the legal authority or physical capacity to detain him properly. He was stripped of his rank and status and his crimes announced in front of numerous witnesses, which would be towards the high end of what Dalinar would be able to do to one of his vassals, and I don't think Amaram actually became one of his own vassals. You could easily argue that is a bad law, but by what right does Dalinar replace it?

 

Also, he opted to lead an army against a force attempting to bring about the end of the world instead of pursuing a murderer, at a point in time where he could pick one or the other.

[Moogle]

As for letting Amaram go free, Dalinar didn't really have the legal authority or physical capacity to detain him properly. He was stripped of his rank and status and his crimes announced in front of numerous witnesses, which would be towards the high end of what Dalinar would be able to do to one of his vassals, and I don't think Amaram actually became one of his own vassals. You could easily argue that is a bad law, but by what right does Dalinar replace it?

 

Dalinar has an obligation to see murderers properly punished, regardless of his legal authority. This means he should be campaigning for Amaram to be put in jail to Elhokar, who does have the power. By Alethi law, what Amaram did was illegal, so it just needs someone to formally charge him... like Elhokar, who Dalinar controls.

 

Also, he opted to lead an army against a force attempting to bring about the end of the world instead of pursuing a murderer, at a point in time where he could pick one or the other.

 

This is a false dichotomy. He could have sent a messenger to Elhokar to tell him of Amaram's crimes with one breath while heading towards his army. He could have waited until things settled down in Urithiru to properly charge Amaram. He has not as of yet, and I get the feeling he won't be. Though, he did tell Kaladin he would try when he got back, so perhaps I should not be so harsh on him.

 

Focusing on Amaram is a poor example anyways, as I believe the original poster used Sadeas as a much more pertinent example. Dalinar took no action against Sadeas, who blatantly betrayed him, because he wanted to keep the kingdom together. He let Sadeas walk free. This is destination before journey as per Teft's explanation.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Moogle

[Aminar]

The only interpretations you can trust are the ones held by the Spren. Look at Syl's interpretation. Look at Pattern's. Spren are intelligent, but they don't seem to have free will the same way people do. So they're judgement of what is appropriate for a knight is instinctual.

They clearly want Kaladin to stick to the ideals over all else. But they don't want him to be working towards a negative end. Same with Shallan. She has to work towards self awareness and acceptance.

Kaladin spent most of this book not understanding or thinking about his oaths and what they meant. We can't trust his judgement of them worth anything until the very ened of the book.

Life is the Journey. The destination is death(Life before death. Journey before Destination). Any step taken in life is Journey. Every step is Journey. So taking power would be a part of the Journey. And it would be wrong. Because it's based on accomplishment rather than on sticking to the ideals. The single greatest thing we have seen from the Radiants is that they don't take sides in national affairs. Nalan gets all the proper paperwork to murder someone so that it's legal murder. I am willing to bet much of Dalinar's character arc will be about separating himself from Alethkar to work towards a greater unity. We'll have to see more.

With Amaram I don't really understand your point. Amaram has nothing to do with the Windrunner Ideals. And he certainly falls under Dalinar's ideal of uniting men rather than dividing them. By not capturing Amaram he brings men together, unifying Sadeas's side with his own.

I think the last part is that a Knight can only make so much sense of what is right and wrong. They have to work off of what they know of a situation. Kaladin was wrong to try to get Amaram. It hurt his bond with Syl, because it put the end(justice/revenge) before the means(breaking Alethkar) And it would have been wrong to andle the manner outside of Alethi law.

You can take the radiant's to that extreme if you want, but I don't think the Spren do. And the Spren are the arbiters here.

[hoser he/him]

But... What am I missing?

Timing and priority, IMO.

 

Timing and priority - With more than one thing going on in the world, it is plain impossible to treat every one as the top priority and drop everything to handle them in a process-oriented manner.  On that interpretation, nobody could accomplish anything.  If it takes a week to try Amaram and everyone dies to the Desolation, that is clearly not feasable.  And what if somebody does something else before you are done trying Amaram.  Do you have to stop everything for that? 

 

What journey before destination has to mean is not to lose sight of priorities and reality, but to apply it to the highest priority problem that you are working on at the time.  So if Dalinar had to slaughter masses of uninvolved innocents to defeat the Voidbringers, a la Mr. T, that would clearly be unacceptable. Being unable to recognize that you have bigger fish to fry seems to me an insane interpretation of the first ideal. 

 

As Dalinar says, there is no point in imprisoning a Shardbearer.  No prison can hold one.  Trying is a foolish waste of time that might cost some guards their lives. 

Edited March 18, 2014 by hoser

[name_here]

He could, for instance, do this:

 

Amaram reached up and undid it, then dropped it to the rock. He turned and started to walk away.
“No!” Kaladin said, stumbling after him.
“Let him go, son,” Dalinar said, sighing. “His reputation is broken.”
“He is still a murderer.”
“And we will try him fairly,” Dalinar said, “once I return. I can’t imprison him—Shardbearers are above that, and he’d cut his way out anyway. Either you execute a Shardbearer or you leave him free.”

Page(s): 947-947, Words of Radiance (Stormlight Archive Series #2) by Brandon Sanderson, Doherty, Tom Associates, LLC
NOOK Study (name). This material is protected by copyright.

[Moogle]

The only interpretations you can trust are the ones held by the Spren. Look at Syl's interpretation. Look at Pattern's. Spren are intelligent, but they don't seem to have free will the same way people do. So they're judgement of what is appropriate for a knight is instinctual.

They clearly want Kaladin to stick to the ideals over all else. But they don't want him to be working towards a negative end. Same with Shallan. She has to work towards self awareness and acceptance.

 

Dalinar didn't have a spren before, and I'm not arguing against Kaladin. So far, he's upheld the Ideals very well. I'm arguing against Dalinar, and we have no spren judgement on him (Dalinar only swore the oaths at the end). The original poster said this:

 

 

He is doing all this, and letting Sadeas escape justice, and Amaram, because of what he thinks "Someone must unite them." means, and is giving himself tunnel vision. He is trying to keep the people of Alethi together at the cost of allowing the depredations of the more odious amongst them near free reign. Sadeas is addicted to the Thrill. Look at its effects on Sadeas warcamp; Odium literally reigns there. He allows that to avoid a civil war. This is completely missing the point about what you should be fighting against.

 

I would also trust Nohadon's interpretation, since his Way of Kings formed the basis for the Ideals:

 

"Whether we find our end in a hallowed sepulcher or a pauper's ditch, all save the Heralds themselves must dine with the Nightwatcher."

"And so, does the destination matter? Or is it the path we take? We are not creatures of destinations. It is the journey that shapes us. Our callused feet, our backs strong from carrying the weight of our travels, our eyes open with the fresh delight of experiences lived."

"In the end, I must proclaim that no good can be achieved of false means. For the substance of our existence is not in the achievement, but in the method. The Monarch must understand this; he must not become so focused on what he wishes to accomplish that he diverts his gaze from the path he must take to arrive there."

 

Nohadon seems to strongly support it not mattering if you fail to reach the destination.

 

And I feel this is the main point that should be argued. Dalinar should have, according to the First Ideal, fought to bring Sadeas to justice. He didn't to avoid civil war. This strikes me as being against the First Ideal, but people have argued that the First Ideal says you should try for a good destination, when I can't find evidence supporting this, and I can find interpretations against (see: Teft/Nohadon) where they say it's okay to fail on the way to your destination.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Moogle

[name_here]

Bringing Saedas to justice would be the destination, and if Dalinar opted to start a civil war in order to do so, that would be the journey. He instead picked the journey of having Adolin kill him in a legal duel, thus accomplishing the same goal without doing so via civil war. The civil war would in fact be the method and not the result, because under Alethi law Saedas hadn't actually committed any crimes, which is why he got away with it even though everyone knew perfectly well exactly what happened.

[Moogle]

Bringing Saedas to justice would be the destination, and if Dalinar opted to start a civil war in order to do so, that would be the journey. He instead picked the journey of having Adolin kill him in a legal duel, thus accomplishing the same goal without doing so via civil war. The civil war would in fact be the method and not the result, because under Alethi law Saedas hadn't actually committed any crimes, which is why he got away with it even though everyone knew perfectly well exactly what happened.

 

If you think that proclaiming Sadeas a betrayer rather than lying to all of the warcamps about what Sadeas did (he openly said he had no problem with Sadeas after he came back) would mean Dalinar was trying for his destination, then I think we have different interpretations of Dalinar's motivations.

 

I believe Dalinar's ultimate goal was to unite the Alethi. He ignored Sadeas and let everyone believe Sadeas' lie until it became convenient and not detrimental for him to attempt to bring Sadeas down. I find this to be a placing of destination before journey, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. I find everyone to have an incredibly liberal view of the philosophy that is not backed up by Teft or Nohadon. Teft and Nohadon say it doesn't matter if Dalinar would fail in attempting to bring Sadeas to justice, because everyone dies eventually and all that matters is how you lived.

 

The arguments I've heard so far are that it's okay to focus a little on the destination, which is great, but I'm not seeing where this is mentioned in the books. It strikes me that it is possible the Recreance probably happened because the Radiants were incapable of ignoring destination before journey as they learned they were responsible for Desolations or something.

[Aleksiel]

I was under the impression everyone knew what really happened at the Tower, but considered it socially acceptable. 

[name_here]

I was under the impression everyone knew what really happened at the Tower, but considered it socially acceptable. 

 

Ayup. Socially and legally, abandoning an ally on the field of battle was considered an acceptable tactic. Dalinar has been making an effort to change that, but it didn't exactly take.

[Zenith]

The arguments I've heard so far are that it's okay to focus a little on the destination, which is great, but I'm not seeing where this is mentioned in the books. It strikes me that it is possible the Recreance probably happened because the Radiants were incapable of ignoring destination before journey as they learned they were responsible for Desolations or something.

What you're really missing here is the fact that the different orders oaths mean different things, even journey before destination. We have WoB that some orders would be very happy with what Adolin did to Sadeas, but the Skybreakers in particular would hate it because he broke a law.

 The destination is the same, vengeance, and the journey is the same, breaking a law (when it was right). It stands to reason that even though Dalinar's destination is vengeance, the way with civil war is in no way an acceptable journey for a bondsmith - that's going against his oaths, and though they were taken at the end of the book, he wouldn't have been able to take them in the first place. To me, causing a civil war and dividing Alethkar is far, far more breaking Dalinar's concept of journey before destination than letting a murderer go free. He can't just break laws and social norms, even to achieve a right purpose, because that will divide and go against his oaths.

[junior]

Dalinar's oaths as a KR revolve around bringing people together.  I strongly suspect that going after Sadeas just for vengeance (which is what it would have more or less amounted to) would be a revocation of the oaths of his KR order due to the dissension and chaos it would cause among the Alethi.  That's not to say that there wouldn't be a just cause for doing so.  But Dalinar going after Sadeas solely for Dalinar's benefit would probably not fit with the oaths.

[Moogle]

What you're really missing here is the fact that the different orders oaths mean different things, even journey before destination. We have WoB that some orders would be very happy with what Adolin did to Sadeas, but the Skybreakers in particular would hate it because he broke a law.

 

And yet, killing Sadeas wouldn't violate the First Ideal for either. What you're speaking of here is the Skybreakers violating their other Ideals, which have to do with following the law. The First Ideal has nothing to do with the law.

 

The First Ideal has nothing to do with being interpreted differently by other orders. It is shared by all the Orders. It is the one connecting thread that makes someone a Knight Radiant. If they're all going to interpret it differently, why bother keeping the word choice the same? It would hardly be necessary.

 

 The destination is the same, vengeance, and the journey is the same, breaking a law (when it was right). It stands to reason that even though Dalinar's destination is vengeance, the way with civil war is in no way an acceptable journey for a bondsmith - that's going against his oaths, and though they were taken at the end of the book, he wouldn't have been able to take them in the first place. To me, causing a civil war and dividing Alethkar is far, far more breaking Dalinar's concept of journey before destination than letting a murderer go free. He can't just break laws and social norms, even to achieve a right purpose, because that will divide and go against his oaths.

 

So in other words, you're implying that the two oaths are contradictory. He cannot completely ignore the destination because his other oaths prevent him from dividing rather than uniting. Because of this, he can't follow the First Ideal, and the other Ideals take precedence.

 

... Oh. Oh. That makes perfect sense. The First Ideal is useless. It doesn't actually have any significance. Oh, that's clever of Brandon/Ishar. I retract none of my previous arguments, but consider me as having conceded the point. By a strict definition of the First Ideal, Dalinar has failed it in my opinion, but it has suddenly become obvious to me that the First Ideal is not followed by the spren, and it grants no increased power, and the Stormfather does not say "these words are accepted" when Dalinar speaks it. Dalinar only think it's important because of the legends he hears from the bridgemen.

 

Anyways, sorry for derailing (though I guess it isn't?) this topic so heavily and being stubborn. I was a fool for not seeing this earlier.

[name_here]

In what possible way does prioritizing methods over results forbid alternate opinions about what methods are acceptable or demand pursuing a specific goal? You do realize that"bring Saedas to justice" is a goal and not a method?

[Observer]

Anyways, sorry for derailing (though I guess it isn't?) this topic so heavily and being stubborn. I was a fool for not seeing this earlier.

 

Alright, I guess tone carries poorly through text, so I could be wrong, but I'm getting a rather rudely sarcastic tone from this. No need to get so snippy.

 

I won't bother going into Kaladanst. Yes, he could just go up and fix his problems, but he was paranoid and broken, and honestly taking the route most obvious to the omniscient reader was never a realistically likely thing for him to do. We've said this all before, so I won't go into it. Moving on to the king for a bit, Honor is not the only Shard on this planet. Yes, Elhokar isn't a perfect king. He's a vacuum, which makes him neither good nor bad for the most part, as he his pushed around more or less equally by both sides. Cultivation is still on this planet to some extent, and I'm reasonably sure that he can grow. But he's kind of a difficult topic to work with, since we know a surprisingly small amount about his exact situations past present and future.

Instead, Dalinar. His Destination is to have a truly united Alethkar, get revenge on Sadeas, and possibly to lead the KR. As a quick sidenote, yes, the KR believe that saving ten is not worth killing one. So, by extention, avenging one at the cost of a million isn't worth it either. The war on the Plains is worthless. What else is new? With this in mind, getting revenge and pulling justice on Sadeas IS NOT worth the potential deaths it would cause in trying to bring him to justice, and certainly not worth ruining the shaky united nature Alethkar already has and turning it into a bloody civil war. A quiet assassination of Sadeas on Dalinar's part would also be a problem. There's another reason why Dalinar didn't just kill him the instant he had a chance. It's not only illegal and would screw him over, but if Sadeas died with his betrayal of Dalinar still fresh in everybody's minds, they'll all turn right at Dalinar and ask him what the heck he was thinking, and yes we all know it was you. Another decision that would shatter Alethkar, breaking the oath of uniting them, killing a bunch of people, just to bring Sadeas to "justice", an endgoal, not a journey, and not a very honorable one at that.

 

Whatever, I'm rambling here. Point is: Uniting people isn't a bad oath, and sounds like a Bondsmith thing. Civil war isn't in line with the first ideal, since it kills a whole bunch of innocent people just to bring a single guy to justice, and, as a parting note of potential agreement, I'll say that we should EXPECT characters to still be screwed up on some levels. We have eight enormous tomes to go. If people weren't still wrong about a few things, we'd be done already.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Observer

[Guest Monster Energy]

I disagree that Elhokar is a bad king. He is a young, inexperienced king. So he's an ineffective king - that is entirely different than a bad king. If he were merely a bad king, he would be indifferent to most everything other than his own personal profit and the enjoyment of the luxuries his status grants him. This is why he was never assassinated by an Althei. As an ineffective king, he can be manipulated and is for more useful to other Highprinces who would increase their own political influence. As a bad king, he would be a disaster, and either a civil war or dealing with Dalinar as Regeant would be preferable to letting him make genuinely bad decisions.

In fact, he reminds me a lot of Elend. He equivocates a lot. He's nonconfrontational. He has the raw potential to be a good king; he just never had the chance to actually learn how to be a king. More importantly than the potential he has is the sincerity he has. He was willing to apprentice himself to a darkeyed exslave to be a more effective king.

I think the Nahel bond he's close to forming will put him in a position to lead not just the Alethi but all of Roshar. Dalinar will unite them. Kaladin will protect them. And Elhokar will lead them. He just has some growing to do.

[Moogle]

Alright, I guess tone carries poorly through text, so I could be wrong, but I'm getting a rather rudely sarcastic tone from this. No need to get so snippy.

 

Sorry about the miscommunication. I actually meant exactly what I said. I even made a thread on it. I feel as if any further replies on the topic of the First Ideal will be me repeating myself and I feel it will lead nowhere, but I will attempt to point out things I am still unsure on:

 

His Destination is to have a truly united Alethkar, get revenge on Sadeas, and possibly to lead the KR. As a quick sidenote, yes, the KR believe that saving ten is not worth killing one. So, by extention, avenging one at the cost of a million isn't worth it either.

 

The destination is Dalinar's uniting of Alethkar, not Dalinar's revenge. Dalinar's revenge is an obstacle, something he has to deal with on his journey to a united Alethkar. I've never felt Dalinar lusts for vengeance all that much - in fact, his decision to kill Sadeas through a lawful duel in book 2 seems based on a desire to unite Alethkar rather than vengeance. To unite Alethkar, he had to let Sadeas get off scot-free and cannot condemn his actions publicly (so he can avoid civil war). This, to me, speaks of a lesser evil for a greater good (similar to killing one person to save ten), which is exactly what I feel the First Ideal opposes. I cannot really express that any differently, and I feel like I'm repeating myself here, for which I apologize.

 

As to the KR's vengeance: I would argue the First Ideal supports killing one person at the cost of a million, so long as it is right to do (the person is a criminal). The First Ideal implies to me that you should do what lets you sleep at night (in contrast to Taravangian who cries for his sins), essentially. That is, you shouldn't consider the consequences and just do what's right at the time (as bringing a criminal to justice tends to be by definition). Obviously this is ridiculous, hence my desire for people not to follow the Ideal.

 

If you're going to interpret the Ideal to mean that it's a-okay to put the destination first and let criminals walk free to support your path to it, then I question why it's even there. Why can't you just do what you want to do (justifying it as you doing the right thing, ie. avoiding civil war) rather than do what you want to do and say you're following the First Ideal? It confuses me. Dalinar was obviously a decent enough person before he ever found the First Ideal, so the swearing of it seems to me to restrict him unnecessarily. I trust him to make right decisions mostly (like not going into civil war for vengeance), and I don't trust interpretations of oaths to do the same thing.

 

The war on the Plains is worthless. What else is new? With this in mind, getting revenge and pulling justice on Sadeas IS NOT worth the potential deaths it would cause in trying to bring him to justice, and certainly not worth ruining the shaky united nature Alethkar already has and turning it into a bloody civil war.

 

I agree. To be clear, I am not arguing that I want Dalinar to follow the First Ideal, I am arguing that I want him to stop following it, or at least stop telling people to follow it publicly as I find (found?) it hypocritical for him to speak of it without following it strictly. I dislike liberal interpretations of things which are spoken of decisively. I would much much prefer the First Ideal to be "journey mostly before destination" in order to be accurate if no one is going to interpret it strictly.

[Guest Monster Energy]

@Moogle

Never underestimate the power of rationalizations. The first ideal says, "journey before destination." It doesn't say anything about being honorable or moral; both those things are very situational. What is reprehensible in one culture is draped with purple honors in another. It could be argued that Taravangian is following the First Ideal, so long as, in his heart, he believes that the actions he is taking are as honorable and moral as he can manage and that there are ruthless, yet more effective, actions he is neglecting because he is following the First Ideal.

Personally, I think this is unlikely. But I'm just demonstrating that sentient beings tend to be rationalizing, not rational. All Taravangian would have to convince would be himself and his hypothetical spren.

It makes me wonder at the psycholinguistics of it. Specifically, how the language you think in affects the way you think. How would the Ideals work when sworn by someone who spoke Loglan, a purely rational language, versus English, which is full of implications, contradictions, mutliple meanings.

[name_here]

So, you think launching an assault at the head of a badly outnumbered army, battling against people following their sworn lord, qualifies as an action that seems "right at the time"? Make no mistake, that is exactly what you are saying the First Ideal should have Dalinar do, because it comes with the result that if he somehow were to succeed he would then kill a man who has not, to Dalinar's knowledge, violated any actual laws.

 

To me, that sounds exactly like "ends justify the means" minus a requirement that your means have to actually achieve the ends in order for the ends to justify them. Also, maybe Dalinar is working in an ethical framework where killing a man illegally is not a morally justified action, and therefore he wouldn't do it regardless of how he prioritized methods vs. results.

Edited March 19, 2014 by name_here

[Moogle]

@Moogle

Never underestimate the power of rationalizations. The first ideal says, "journey before destination." It doesn't say anything about being honorable or moral; both those things are very situational. What is reprehensible in one culture is draped with purple honors in another. It could be argued that Taravangian is following the First Ideal, so long as, in his heart, he believes that the actions he is taking are as honorable and moral as he can manage and that there are ruthless, yet more effective, actions he is neglecting because he is following the First Ideal.

 

Yes, I think we're coming to an understanding here. What you're saying here is very close to how I would say "journey before destination" means you should be trying to take actions that don't fill you with guilt. It's a catch-all for cultural relativity as well as variations within individuals!

 

So, you think launching an assault at the head of a badly outnumbered army, battling against people following their sworn lord, qualifies as an action that seems "right at the time"? Make no mistake, that is exactly what you are saying the First Ideal should have Dalinar do, because it comes with the result that if he somehow were to succeed he would then kill a man who has not, to Dalinar's knowledge, violated any actual laws.

 

Yes, that is along the lines of what I'm proposing. It is, in fact, exactly what the Desolations are anyways. A constant fight against an enemy you can't beat when you're losing (no Dawnshards, no Honor, no Heralds, mostly dead Radiants...). Kaladin's story about Fleet fits in perfectly. Fleet ran and ran against a storm he knew he couldn't beat, and he died. But it was the journey that mattered, not the fact that he knew he was going to die.

 

I think doing something stupid like fighting in near-certain death applies, so long as you do it at peace with your actions. Something akin to Dalinar fighting a battle he knows is hopeless against the Parshendi because the bridgemen gave him a speck of hope. Perhaps this means you can't do anything blatantly stupid.

 

Minor variation on the classic trolley problem:

 

A man is stuck and blocking a tunnel as a train rushes at him. it will surely kill him if you do not save him, but if you save him, the train will continue onwards (the man would have blocked it) and kill ten people, none of whom you can save. What do you do?

 

It's a question that Syl would be irritatingly incapable of answering, I think. Or perhaps she would just say you should save the first man and you're not responsible for the men behind him or something. My point is that I feel the First Ideal ignores the consequences (it would say you should save that man because no good comes of evil actions) here. Am I completely off the rails? Does the answer change if a billion people die when the man is saved? What if the entirety of Roshar is destroyed if the Radiant saves that man?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Moogle

[Seloun]

Minor variation on the classic trolley problem:

 

A man is stuck and blocking a tunnel as a train rushes at him. it will surely kill him if you do not save him, but if you save him, the train will continue onwards (the man would have blocked it) and kill ten people, none of whom you can save. What do you do?

 

It's a question that Syl would be irritatingly incapable of answering, I think. Or perhaps she would just say you should save the first man and you're not responsible for the men behind him or something. My point is that I feel the First Ideal ignores the consequences (it would say you should save that man so you don't feel guilty or something) here. Am I completely off the rails?

 

As a caveat, I'm pretty sure the following has no relationship whatsoever to what Sanderson has put in the books. I'm answering this given my current headcanon.

 

If you are 100% certain about the outcomes of your choices and the 'value' (however you define it) of 10 people is greater than the first man, you should clearly choose not to save the first man.

The problem with the Trolley problem in general and this problem in particular is that you are never really sure about the actual outcome of your choices. In the example trolley problem, you're probably going to be much more confident about whether or not you can save the first person than you will be about whether or not leaving the person will save the 10 people afterwards (if nothing else, saving the one is something that can be done sooner, and thus has less chance of random factors altering the outcome).

 

Consider that Vorinism disallows predicting the future.

 

If you don't really know if leaving the first will save the ten, then it's pretty clear that at least saving the one you know you can save is the better option. 'Journey before destination', in that case, means you should do the right thing now instead of relying on predicting that doing something else will be a better thing in the future.

 

There's a secondary issue that predicting the future is really, really hard. To the point that having a simple rule that everyone can follow, even if not optimal given infinite computational capability, can be optimal choice when you are computationally (or informationally, or whatever) bound.

[xbauks he/him]

@moogle

I think we're interpreting journey before destination differently. The way I see it: pick destination->pick right* journey->follow said journey even though you may fail. The important bit being picking the right* journey and following it. It does not mean you do things regardless of consequence.

Regarding Teft: "There are always several ways to achieve a goal. Failure is preferable to winning through unjust means. Protecting ten innocents is not worth killing one."

Keeping in mind the above, let's look at Dalinar. He let's both and and Amaram get away with murder. He doesn't punish Elhokar for the Roshone incident and tries to hush it up. The Roshone incident happened years ago. When Gavilar was still alive. This was before the visions and before he started reading WoK. Do I think what he did was wrong? Yes. Do I think he has changed? Most definitely.

He let Amaram get away with it. Someone already put a quote saying Dalinar couldn't have held a Shardbearer hostage. So that's not relevant anymore.

He let Sadeas get away. First, we need to establish what is journey and what is destination in this scenario. Being Sadeas to justice is the destination. How Dalinar goes about doing that is the journey. So let's look at the paths available to Dalinar right after the betrayal: the court (or the Alethi equivalent) or war. Taking Sadeas to court right after the betrayal would have done nothing. Sadeas's actions were perfectly acceptable by Alethi standards. Inciting civil war by attacking Sadeas may have gotten Dalinar his justice but at the cost of the death of a few thousand men. So the destination has no right* journey. So discard that destination until a right* journey becomes available. And that's exactly what Dalinar did.

*whatever right means.

Edited March 19, 2014 by xbauks

[happyman he/him]

He let Sadeas get away. First, we need to establish what is journey and what is destination in this scenario. Being Sadeas to justice is the destination. How Dalinar goes about doing that is the journey. So let's look at the paths available to Dalinar right after the betrayal: the court (or the Alethi equivalent) or war. Taking Sadeas to court right after the betrayal would have done nothing. Sadeas's actions were perfectly acceptable by Alethi standards. Inciting civil war by attacking Sadeas may have gotten Dalinar his justice but at the cost of the death of a few thousand men. So the destination has no right* journey. So discard that destination until a right* journey becomes available. And that's exactly what Dalinar did.

*whatever right means.

 

Oh, the consequences of going to war with Sadeas are far worse than that.  While it would certainly cost him (and Sadeas) good men, it would also absolutely undermine the stability of the kingdom.  If Dalinar's goal is to unite the Alethi into a single nation with a single goal, attacking Sadeas outright would be a great way to undo all of the work in one go.  Even killing Sadeas quietly would cause fractures.

 

As far as I can tell, Dalinar had no good choices.  He tried to go with the least bad ones.  That wouldn't be a violation of his oaths.