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

[Laloric]

Woohoo first forum post!

I think that the important piece has been mentioned. I don't have my book in front of me, but in WoK in one of Dalinar's visions, Nohadon mentions that not all spren are as discerning as honor spren. Also in WoR we are seeing that some radians only speak the first oath, such as Shalon, and require (or not as we will surely RAFO) other connections to their spren. With that said it seems that the KR are more bound by their oath(s) as defined by their sprens instinctual beliefs.

On the topic of leadership, and again I will have to go look up my reference, are we sure Bondsmiths are tied to the herald of leadership? I seem to recall that it was mentioned that (insert correct herald here) will teach you leadership. Bondsmiths don't strike me as leaders, uniting and leading are onto the same IMHO. But neither do I see Windrunners leading the KR, I will agree that leadership is a key for Windrunners, but I see it as small units like their squires.

Anyways it makes sense in my head.

[Shardbearer]

@Moogle:

 

Saying "Journey before destination" is not at all the same as saying "Journey is all that matters, desitnation is irrelevant".

 

You seem to be taking a rather hardline interpretation of Nohadon and Teft's comments on the Ideal. I think that their commentary is more of a general principle than what you are taking it to be. They aren't defining the Ideal, they are commenting on it.

 

"Journey before destination" to me, says to choose a moral path to achieve the desired destination. It doesn't say to leave the destination out of the equation alltogether.

 

So, Dalinar's destination is united Alethekar. The journey involves choosing how to deal with Sadeas in a way that is moral. Letting him get away with betrayal isn't moral, but neither is getting vengance at the cost of a civil war. This is why the Journey involved putting off that vengance and justice to find a better way to deal with Sadeas that wouldn't also ruin everthing Dalinar was working for.

 

Apparently, the Stormfather agrees with this interpretation, because he accepted the oath.

 

Unless you can find another way to reconcile your interpretation of the Ideal, Dalinar's actions, and the Stormfather's acceptance?

[Moogle]

Unless you can find another way to reconcile your interpretation of the Ideal, Dalinar's actions, and the Stormfather's acceptance?

 

My current interpretation is that the First Ideal is mostly meaningless and not required for the bond (or well, it sort of is, but its a hacky solution that only partially binds the Radiant), and that breaking it partially has no negative effects for the spren. Kaladin attempted to commit suicide, against the "life before death" bit of the Ideal, and Syl didn't care. I've put more thoughts on why I think the First Ideal is unlike the other Ideals here.

 

I believe, therefore, that you can interpret the First Ideal as liberally as you like (only when you go against it directly will most spren have issues with you). My previous comments about my belief that Dalinar was breaking the First Ideal stands, but I believe taking such a hard-line stance is wrong. Pattern cares about truths and lies, not the First Ideal. Syl likes the First Ideal, but breaking it wasn't bond-shattering like refusing to protect was. She even went so far as to break the bond when Kaladin broke his as-yet unspoken Third Ideal.

 

I'm sorry for not responding more to this thread, as I felt like I've been repeating the same things over and over. I've also been stubborn in my arguments, which is a bad sign in my mind. It tends to signify I'm wrong and refusing to see something. I'd prefer to gracefully exit the discussion because I don't feel it will go anywhere, rather than get myself deeper in trouble and make arguments like "the civil war was not guaranteed to happen and it is immoral (as per Teft) to keep the nation united by letting murderers walk free and civil war would be preferable by Teft's interpretation".

 

I don't agree that killing Sadeas just after his betrayal would be 'moral' or good, nobody else agrees that it would be, and I agree with most of what Dalinar did in WoR. I don't believe strictly following the First Ideal is required for a spren bond anymore since my artificial First Ideal theory, so there's really nothing to be gained for me arguing that Dalinar's a hypocrite. (I would still prefer if the First Ideal was "journey mostly before destination", though.) This is why I'm trying to keep a lower profile in this thread.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Moogle

[name_here]

The civil war was guaranteed to happen if Dalinar opted to bring Saedas to justice immediately, because bringing Saedas to justice would be a civil war. There was no method that would even progress towards doing that aside from a civil war. As such, the civil war would be the journey towards the destination of bringing Saedas to justice. The First Ideal therefore forbids Dalinar from attempting to bring Saedas to justice by killing thousands of innocents and shattering the kingdom.

Edited March 20, 2014 by name_here

[Shardbearer]

My current interpretation is that the First Ideal is mostly meaningless and not required for the bond (or well, it sort of is, but its a hacky solution that only partially binds the Radiant), and that breaking it partially has no negative effects for the spren. Kaladin attempted to commit suicide, against the "life before death" bit of the Ideal, and Syl didn't care. I've put more thoughts on why I think the First Ideal is unlike the other Ideals here.

 

I believe, therefore, that you can interpret the First Ideal as liberally as you like (only when you go against it directly will most spren have issues with you). My previous comments about my belief that Dalinar was breaking the First Ideal stands, but I believe taking such a hard-line stance is wrong. Pattern cares about truths and lies, not the First Ideal. Syl likes the First Ideal, but breaking it wasn't bond-shattering like refusing to protect was. She even went so far as to break the bond when Kaladin broke his as-yet unspoken Third Ideal.

 

I'm sorry for not responding more to this thread, as I felt like I've been repeating the same things over and over. I've also been stubborn in my arguments, which is a bad sign in my mind. It tends to signify I'm wrong and refusing to see something. I'd prefer to gracefully exit the discussion because I don't feel it will go anywhere, rather than get myself deeper in trouble and make arguments like "the civil war was not guaranteed to happen and it is immoral (as per Teft) to keep the nation united by letting murderers walk free and civil war would be preferable by Teft's interpretation".

 

I don't agree that killing Sadeas just after his betrayal would be 'moral' or good, nobody else agrees that it would be, and I agree with most of what Dalinar did in WoR. I don't believe strictly following the First Ideal is required for a spren bond anymore since my artificial First Ideal theory, so there's really nothing to be gained for me arguing that Dalinar's a hypocrite. (I would still prefer if the First Ideal was "journey mostly before destination", though.) This is why I'm trying to keep a lower profile in this thread.

Ah, that actually clears up things alot. I hadn't realized you thought the First Ideal was fudgeable. That mostly clears everthing up for me, except that I disagree about Dalinar being a hypocrite, but that wasn't really my main point.

[taliefer]

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?

 

i think you could be on to something actually. the first ideal is the same for all orders...it is the subsequent oaths or truths or whatever mechanism that each order uses to refine their seperate moralities and that this is the cause of conflicts between the different orders.

 

as for sadeas...it wouldnt really be bringing sadeas to justice in their world. Dalinar would entirely be the aggressor based on their social beliefs. Sadeas did nothing illiegal in their society, and indeed nothing even morally repugnant by the accepted standards. i believe he even realizes this himself(although i havent done a re-read of WoK in a while)

[Grimm]

He says, "Someone must lead them." (?)

He says, "Someone must unite them."(Dalinar)

He says, "Someone must protect them." (Kaladin)

 

these are very, very interesting to me after WoR. Kaladins oaths are about protecting. Dalinar's about uniting. i dont think we've met the leader yet. that could be another theory all its own.

 

I agree completely. When I saw this it made me think the same thing. I expect us to see someone else coming along to lead, someone we don't expect (not a Kholin). Unless Elhokar role reverses, but I doubt that happening. 

[Moogle]

Okay, I think this part of the discussion is actually bound to be fruitful, so I'll jump back in. How do you determine what the destination and journey are?

 

The civil war was guaranteed to happen if Dalinar opted to bring Saedas to justice immediately, because bringing Saedas to justice would be a civil war. There was no method that would even progress towards doing that aside from a civil war.

 

Assassination? I think assassination would work pretty well. A civil war is only started when two highprinces openly go after each other, and if no one could link the assassin back to Dalinar, I think things would go pretty well. Unless the First Ideal forbids assassination? Something to think on. Jasnah never had a problem with it, but I'm decently confident the First Ideal doesn't bind her actions that tightly.

 

 

As such, the civil war would be the journey towards the destination of bringing Saedas to justice

 

How are you determining what the journey and destination are, here? Is there some set of guidelines sitting around? I feel like this might clear up everything.

 

In my mind, Dalinar's destination has always been that he wants to unite the Alethi thanks to his visions. His journey to doing that involves letting a man who takes slaves and flings them at the enemy unarmed go free and continue doing that. This same man has openly betrayed him and will likely continue trying to kill him. This same man will continue harming people so long as he lives (see: everyone who died to Sadeas' assassination attempt, any further bridgemen he trained before Adolin fixed him). Letting this man go free is morally questionable by most standards, I believe. He's letting the destination (he must have Alethkar united, and he can only do so via letting a murderer walk free) come before the journey. The legality is what Sadeas did doesn't really matter, since Dalinar has an obligation to stop him, be it through illegal methods or not.

 

If dealing with Sadeas leads to civil war, then that's fine as per our explanation of the Ideal ("failure is preferable to winning through unjust means"). He's not harming innocents directly, so the Ideal is probably fine with it. How he lived is more important than what he did. He would have lived preventing evil men from walking free.

 

I'm just trying to find out how you're determining that dealing with Sadeas would suddenly turn it into the destination. If we had more interpretations of the First Ideal, it would be helpful I think. The two I have suggest that doing anything questionable on your way to whatever you want is bad.

[name_here]

 

Assassination? I think assassination would work pretty well. A civil war is only started when two highprinces openly go after each other, and if no one could link the assassin back to Dalinar, I think things would go pretty well. Unless the First Ideal forbids assassination? Something to think on. Jasnah never had a problem with it, but I'm decently confident the First Ideal doesn't bind her actions that tightly.

 

Actually, I think she's in an order that considers assassinating the guilty a legitimate thing to do, but the First Ideal would forbid assassinating innocent people. The Windrunners apparently do not consider assassination a legitimate tactic, and I expect that would also be true of the Bondsmiths. It's a moot point, though, because Dalinar didn't have deniable assets that could plausibly kill Saedas even if the First Ideal would permit it.

 

 

How are you determining what the journey and destination are, here? Is there some set of guidelines sitting around? I feel like this might clear up everything.

 

Order of operations. The journey is the thing that results in the destination. Dalinar wished to bring Saedas to judgement, but possessed no acceptable means of accomplishing that.

Edited March 20, 2014 by name_here

[Kier]

Just my two cents here. I'm on my phone so I'm not going to quote anyone, but I may respond directly.

first of all the question of the ideals. Specifically the first ideal. Let me start by saying I don't know if I would say its "completely meaningless". I would say that it is applied by the interpretation of the bonding spren. I also believe that, by nahodans, that his interpretation is one held by the Honor spren. I would argue the same for teft. They had the Honor view of that ideal. I would say skybreaker high spren and bondsmith spren have the most similar view to this ideal. Where as cryptics would have a very different view. And say wyndle. Who seems to not have much issue with thievery and id be surprised if syl didn't have a word or two to say about that.

secondly, I think its important that its referred to as an ideal. Its exactly that. Meaning is to be lived for and after but its not a hard rule. Along with this I contend that its important to live by the moment. That's what I take life before death to mean. Journey before destination. I means if we had a way to act that was better, or would save lives, we are obligated to act in that way. Meaning it is better to save the one, even if 10 die. Because at that moment the choice was save one by action or condemn one by inaction. At least to honorspren.

In Dalinars case, its more important that people are unified. So, by giving mercy to people and allowing them to choose their own way he can guide them, and hopefully bring them to his needs. In his order this is journey before destination. Because it would be easier to kill people that disagree or slight him and just find others. But that's the wrong way to get a unified people.

did this make sense?

[Swimmingly]

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!

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?

IMO the Honorspren-approved action would be to save the first man, then try as hard as possible to save the others, even knowing that you can't.

[Moogle]

Order of operations. The journey is the thing that results in the destination. Dalinar wished to bring Saedas to judgement, but possessed no acceptable means of accomplishing that.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me put your argument as I'm interpreting it down in bullet form:

• Dalinar wants to unite the Alethi highprinces. Part of his journey (methods of uniting the people) is to let Sadeas, a murderer, be free. This is immoral.
• If Dalinar wants to bring Sadeas to justice (moral), suddenly this is his destination and as part of this journey he will cause civil war (and he has no other options), so this is an unacceptable journey and he shouldn't kill Sadeas.

And from this, you conclude that Dalinar is following the First Ideal by not killing Sadeas.

 

Let me make a similar argument:

• Taravangian wants to unite the entire world. As part of his journey, he has to murder people for their Death Rattles. This is immoral.
• If Taravangian wants to save people in his hospital (moral), suddenly this is his destination and the entire world will be fragmented because he can't unite it and everyone will die to the Desolation, so this is an unacceptable journey and he should murder people.

Therefore, Taravangian is following the First Ideal by murdering people.

 

I'm confused as to how you can just pick and choose the destination/journey here. It seems to me there's a flaw in this logic.

 

My solution is to say that Dalinar only has one destination, and that is uniting the Alethi people. Taravangian has one destination, and that is uniting the world. They're both doing bad things as part of their journey, and therefore they've both failed the First Ideal.

 

Arbitrarily declaring parts of their actions to be destinations seems to me to lead to contradictions. Where am I going wrong here?

 

IMO the Honorspren-approved action would be to save the first man, then try as hard as possible to save the others, even knowing that you can't.

 

But then the honorspren would be making sure ten people died as opposed to one! That doesn't seem very protect-y to me at all. How would Syl respond to an argument like that? I don't think she'd have an answer.

 

Trying to protect people is not in of itself valuable, it's the fact that you save people's lives. It seems like it's missing the point to try and protect someone when you're going to fail. This is the basis for my entire argument about the First Ideal leading to ridiculous situations.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Moogle

[name_here]

My argument is from order of  causation. If Taravangian opted to make his destination saving the people in his hospital, he would be following the First Ideal by not murdering them. If Dalinar opted to make his destination bringing Saedas to justice, he would be violating the First Ideal by leading his badly outnumbered army against Saedas's troops and killing thousands of largely innocent people. If he could arrest and try Saedas and doing so would result in a civil war, he would be following the First Ideal by doing so. Because in one case the civil war is the action and in the other it is the result, and the First Ideal says that you should not perform an immoral action in an effort to achieve a moral result.

[Moogle]

My argument is from order of  causation. If Taravangian opted to make his destination saving the people in his hospital, he would be following the First Ideal by not murdering them. If Dalinar opted to make his destination bringing Saedas to justice, he would be violating the First Ideal by leading his badly outnumbered army against Saedas's troops and killing thousands of largely innocent people. If he could arrest and try Saedas and doing so would result in a civil war, he would be following the First Ideal by doing so. Because in one case the civil war is the action and in the other it is the result, and the First Ideal says that you should not perform an immoral action in an effort to achieve a moral result.

 

Aha! Your position makes perfect sense then. I simply do not believe Dalinar would have had to use his entire army and kill innocents to kill Sadeas. I think he could have just summoned his Shardblade and started wailing on Sadeas, killing him, and then done a hasty retreat. There's no need for him to command the death of innocents. Any innocents who died would be a result of Sadeas' soldiers continuing their attack back at Dalinar's camp, in which case they could be blamed and not Dalinar since he only caused their deaths indirectly, and he could make a retreat of his entire warcamp probably anywyas.

 

According to your views, this would be fine and he'd be following the First Ideal, so by not doing it (if you accept that he had the option to murder Sadeas and make a hasty retreat) he broke the First Ideal. We don't disagree on the First Ideal, we disagree on the options available to Dalinar. I am satisfied with your position and find little flaw with it. Thank you for the discussion.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Moogle

[name_here]

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. The First Ideal is, after all, only one of the Oaths binding an Order. An extrajudical killing of a man who does not pose an immediate threat may very well be forbidden by the Bondsmith Oaths because it is in opposition to the laws and ethical philosophies that hold Alethkar together. Other orders could hold it is nevertheless permissible and required, while Shallan and Pattern would probably say he should be permitted to atone for his past crimes but would accept killing him if he remains a threat.

 

As for Syl's response to the trolley problem, she'd probably say you should free the first man and block the trolley yourself, or more likely that Kaladin (the only person she's specifically advising) should use Full Lashings to stop the trolley and save everyone. Of course, the point of the hypothetical is to set up a binary choice where either one person on the tracks or ten people on the tracks die, but I don't think Syl actually accepts the premise that there's ever going to be a binary choice like that and her philosophy has no answer because it does not believe in the question. If pressed, probably she'd say leave the first guy because removing him would qualify as murdering the ten and is thus an unacceptable method of protecting, but would also say the same in a save-ten-kill-one formulation of the question.

[Aminar]

Aha! Your position makes perfect sense then. I simply do not believe Dalinar would have had to use his entire army and kill innocents to kill Sadeas. I think he could have just summoned his Shardblade and started wailing on Sadeas, killing him, and then done a hasty retreat. There's no need for him to command the death of innocents. Any innocents who died would be a result of Sadeas' soldiers continuing their attack back at Dalinar's camp, in which case they could be blamed and not Dalinar since he only caused their deaths indirectly, and he could make a retreat of his entire warcamp probably anywyas.

 

According to your views, this would be fine and he'd be following the First Ideal, so by not doing it (if you accept that he had the option to murder Sadeas and make a hasty retreat) he broke the First Ideal. We don't disagree on the First Ideal, we disagree on the options available to Dalinar. I am satisfied with your position and find little flaw with it. Thank you for the discussion.

But taking the law into your own hands is wrong.  Even Elhokar declaring him a murderer and ordering his execution is wrong.  The important part is in the idea of doing what is right.  What is right is the same solution Dalinar had for Amaram.  Trial then execution.  Moogle, you continue to ignore the intuitive nature of right and wrong in your arguments, as if everything can be solved by logic.  It cannot, and the radiant's operate understanding that.  In all honesty you seem to be willfully trying to make the radiant's look like an evil/misguided organization.  

The Radiants are the embodiment of this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics  You can argue for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology being better.  In the end what you are missing is that part of doing the right thing is trying for the greater good while doing the best you can to do what you feel is right.  That is the truth of Journey before Destination.  Do what's best, try for the best consequences, but if things go horribly wrong take solace in the fact you're a human being and cannot predict the future, therefor you cannot know every consequence of your action.  Nowhere in there does it say the consequences don't matter.  Nowhere in the Radiant's oaths does it say the consequences don't matter.  It just means that the Greater Good is not justification for doing horrible evil things with the power radiant's have.  This is not, in any way, a new debate.  It has been hashed out in college philosophy classes every year for basically forever.  The way you are looking at it is missing the whole point, and the context of the Radiants, of the Series, and of Brandon's writing style.  (The whole Heroic Fantasy angle of things.  Szeth was an example of a windrunner unchecked.  He put the world into war.  Imagine a world with hundreds of windrunner assassins...)  That's why the oaths exist...

Each order has their own focus, but none condone evil(although, again the Skybreakers seem to stretch this, but I think that has more to do with a focus on punishment, and I think they were originally meant to Watchdog the Radiants themselves, to make sure the oaths were not being exploited.(Such as manipulating circumstances to put innocents in danger from those you want to kill so that you can murder them.(A possible exploitation of the windrunner oaths.)  We don't know enough about the historical sky-breakers to figure out more...

[Shardbearer]

Saying Dalinar could only have one Destination is a bit silly, IMO. I have more than one thing I want to acheive with my life.

 

Dalinar wanted a united Alethekar. He also wanted revenge on Sadeas for what he did. These two destinations came into conflict.

 

Part of the journey for both of these, then, was weighing the expected results of his possible actions, and chosing the best option as he saw it. This led him to postpone getting vengance and bringing Sadeas to justice. Not abondoning it completly, just putting it off so that he could deal with it in a way that wouldn't cause a civil war.

[Moogle]

But taking the law into your own hands is wrong.  Even Elhokar declaring him a murderer and ordering his execution is wrong.

 

That might be how you feel, but I don't know if it makes it 'right'. Certainly there are other people on these forums who feel differently. Jasnah would argue differently.

 

Moogle, you continue to ignore the intuitive nature of right and wrong in your arguments, as if everything can be solved by logic.  It cannot, and the radiant's operate understanding that.

 

The 'intuitive nature' simply means that whatever you feel good about is right, I think is what you're saying? I can't argue against that, since I think somewhat roughly along the same lines, except to say that what you feel is most certainly not the same as what everyone else feels. I'm okay with you saying that you feel Sadeas should not have been unlawfully killed (I can't argue with how people feel), but I think it would be more clear if you said that you just would not like it if Dalinar killed Sadeas unlawfully rather than declare it 'wrong'.

 

I'm hardly trying to argue everything is solved by logic. My personal feelings are that you figure out what you want regardless of logic, then use logic and rationality to achieve your goal in the most effective manner possible. Obviously if these methods lead to you feeling sad, then that's not something you want (unless what you want is worth feeling sad, like saving lives), so so don't do those things.

 

In all honesty you seem to be willfully trying to make the radiant's look like an evil/misguided organization.

The Radiants are the embodiment of this, http://en.wikipedia....ological_ethics  You can argue for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology being better.

 

I think the Radiants were great. On Roshar, one of the better ways to be a consequentialist (teleologist if you want to use that word) is to be a deontologist and attract a spren, as ironic it is. Jasnah is a perfect example of this principle in action. I love Jasnah.

 

What am I arguing is that my strict interpretation of the First Ideal leads to ridiculous situations, and that by a strict interpretation (using Teft and Nohadon who both explain the First Ideal) Dalinar has failed by allowing Sadeas to live. You're more than welcome to disagree and provide alternative interpretations, but I am trying to go by the book and follow things strictly to see what happens. Nohadon and Teft imply you cannot ever do something wrong in the pursuit if your destination or else it is bad. Leaving Sadeas alive/unpunished is certainly injust, it's just preferable to the alternative of a civil war. I agree with Dalinar's actions. He's doing great. The way I'm interpreting Teft is that this fails the First Ideal is all. I don't mind that.

 

I am guessing that the Radiants did not have to follow the First Ideal very strictly, and probably used it more as a rule of thumb or a guiding mantra to keep the Orders together. Certainly the Radiant's other Ideals played a far more important part in their actions (Dalinar wants to unite, Kaladin wants to protect, that sort of thing) than the First Ideal.

 

The way you are looking at it is missing the whole point, and the context of the Radiants, of the Series, and of Brandon's writing style.  (The whole Heroic Fantasy angle of things.  Szeth was an example of a windrunner unchecked.  He put the world into war.  Imagine a world with hundreds of windrunner assassins...)  That's why the oaths exist...

 

I understand perfectly the point of view that Brandon is putting forth. I can guess that Taravangian will be proved 'wrong' and fail in some way, or be taken down as a villain by the Radiants, or else succeed and Brandon will show it was not worth it. Something like that. This is, however, a point of view and certainly does not describe any universal truth, though he may be describing the views of a good portion of humanity.

 

Saying Dalinar could only have one Destination is a bit silly, IMO. I have more than one thing I want to acheive with my life.

 

Dalinar wanted a united Alethekar. He also wanted revenge on Sadeas for what he did. These two destinations came into conflict.way that wouldn't cause a civil war.

 

Part of the journey for both of these, then, was weighing the expected results of his possible actions, and chosing the best option as he saw it. This led him to postpone getting vengance and bringing Sadeas to justice. Not abondoning it completly, just putting it off so that he could deal with it in a way that wouldn't cause a civil war.

 

Right, okay, but the First Ideal doesn't say "choose the least bad option", Nohadon says it means "don't choose any bad option ever or else you've done bad" ("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"). That's all I'm trying to say here - I'm seeing that by these interpretations, Dalinar would be forced to go after Sadeas because otherwise he'd be doing something bad (letting a murderer go free).

 

Having your enemy start a war against you when you stand up to his evil is not something that I think can be seen as "false means", and people just seem to be stating that it would be without telling me anything more than it's "intuitive". Obviously, yes, civil war is not something I want and people dying is bad and so I support Dalinar's actions, but that doesn't mean the First Ideal opposes it. It seems to support dying in the pursuit of 'good' or 'just means' because "everyone dies eventually".  People are saying that this isn't true, but I just can't see where this is supported by the text. I feel like most people have decided that the First Ideal's vague wording supports their own view of what's right/wrong, and so are stretching it to fit in their own morality. I think this is what the Radiants did and that this is fine. I'm just arguing against my own strict absurd interpretation and no one seems to hold my view, so I'm not really sure if I'm arguing with anyone in these posts. It seems like I'm arguing something really pedantic.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Moogle

[Kier]

So. I agree with you moogle, at least mostly. I think the first ideal is more a mantra, and a frame for the rest of the oaths, but is viewed differently by each order. For example.

for dalinar to live his orders oaths, the first oath is to leave sadeas alive. His orders oath is to unite. To do that in a "journey before destination" type of way is to guide people and provide mercy. Where as Dalinar could kill any who oppose him/offend him. And that way reach unity by having only those who will be united live. But that breaks the first oath.

however if it was Kaladin in Dalinars shoes. His oaths would push him to kill sadeas because he isn't willing to change and will thus harm more people. So in order to protect those people Sadeas needs to be stopped, permanently.

do you agree with this?

I also feel this is part of what lead to Honors mentioning of the KRs inner struggles.

[Moogle]

for dalinar to live his orders oaths, the first oath is to leave sadeas alive. His orders oath is to unite. To do that in a "journey before destination" type of way is to guide people and provide mercy. Where as Dalinar could kill any who oppose him/offend him. And that way reach unity by having only those who will be united live. But that breaks the first oath.

however if it was Kaladin in Dalinars shoes. His oaths would push him to kill sadeas because he isn't willing to change and will thus harm more people. So in order to protect those people Sadeas needs to be stopped, permanently.

do you agree with this?

 

I mostly agree with what you're getting at. I think your example with Kaladin is uncertain though, because he'd be killing a lot of people if Sadeas were to die (because there might be a war/retaliation). I'm uncertain.

[name_here]

Right, okay, but the First Ideal doesn't say "choose the least bad option", Nohadon says it means "don't choose any bad option ever or else you've done bad" ("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"). That's all I'm trying to say here - I'm seeing that by these interpretations, Dalinar would be forced to go after Sadeas because otherwise he'd be doing something bad (letting a murderer go free).

 

 

Your interpretation is not one I consider valid, in both the sense of the meaning of the oaths and in this specific application.

 

Firstly, Nohandon is saying that an immoral action cannot be justified by its results. That doesn't actually imply that any moral action is justified regardless of results; the actual contrapositive is that having an immoral outcome is not a justification for a moral action without saying that a moral result cannot justify a moral action. So it being moral to kill Saedas does not mandate that Dalinar do so.

 

Secondly, it being morally acceptable to do something does not mean it's immoral to not do that. Dalinar didn't take an action that caused Saedas to be let free, he just never killed or detained him in the first place. Those are distinct, so an ethical system can permit the later but prohibit the former. It can also both prohibt freeing a murderer and killing someone who does not pose a direct physical danger and has not been convicted of a crime, or it could potentially prohibit capital punishment entirely. Dalinar's system could easily say that both killing and not killing Saedas are permissible actions, so Dalinar could pick the one with the best results while holding the First Ideal. However, Dalinar could theoretically also flay the entirety of Bridge Four alive as an offering to Odium in exchange for peace, and the First Ideal means that wouldn't be acceptable even if it worked.

 

As for what Kaladin would do, Syl apparently doesn't support vengeance killings. The Windrunner Oaths don't forbid killing him if done in honorable combat, but they also don't forbid not killing him, so both killing and not killing him can be evaluated in terms of how many people each would protect.

 

EDIT: It should also be pointed out that the First Ideal is not stated in terms of propositional logic. Teft and Dalinar probably don't know what propositional logic even is.

Edited March 21, 2014 by name_here

[Moogle]

Firstly, Nohandon is saying that an immoral action cannot be justified by its results. That doesn't actually imply that any moral action is justified regardless of results; the actual contrapositive is that having an immoral outcome is not a justification for a moral action without saying that a moral result cannot justify a moral action. So it being moral to kill Saedas does not mandate that Dalinar do so.

 

I agree here. The First Ideal has nothing to say on whether or not a particular result is moral or not. It's fine for you to have the destination of a civil war, and it's fine for you to have the destination of a united nation. You just aren't allowed to use immoral actions to achieve your result. Just because it would be moral to kill Sadeas does not mean he has to.

 

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is actively 'immoral' of Dalinar to let Sadeas go free. Here is his initial confrontation:

 

“Dalinar,” Sadeas exclaimed, “old friend! It appears that I overestimated the odds against you. I apologize for retreating when you were still in danger, but the safety of my men came first. I’m certain you understand.”

Dalinar stopped a short distance from Sadeas. The two faced each other, collected armies tense. A cold breeze whipped at a canopy behind Sadeas.

“Of course,” Dalinar said, his voice even. “You did what you had to do.”

Sadeas relaxed visibly, though several of Dalinar’s soldiers muttered at that. Adolin silenced them with pointed glances.

 

Here, Dalinar is lying and supporting Sadeas' lies. Sadeas betrayed him and his troops, and Dalinar openly lets him get away with it.

 

This is the equivalent of a witness to a murder telling the police that the murderer they have in custody had nothing to do with it. Hence his soldier's grumbles, who find what Dalinar is doing unjust.

 

So, when you say that

 

Dalinar didn't take an action that caused Saedas to be let free, he just never killed or detained him in the first place

I disagree strongly.

 

Dalinar aided Sadeas here. It was immoral. Dalinar did it on his destination to unite the Alethi. His means of uniting the Alethi were unjust and false, and thus Nohadon's interpretation of the First Ideal ("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") says he did "no good". Teft's interpretation ("Failure is preferable to winning through unjust means") says that it was not worth it for Dalinar to commit this immoral act to unite the nation. And I'm okay with this. It was done to avoid civil war. In this case, I believe the destination is more important than the journey.

 

I really think we're at an impasse here. I'm having too hard of a time seeing Dalinar's support of Sadeas' lies as anything but doing a small evil to avoid a greater one. To be convinced that Dalinar did not break the Ideal, I have to be convinced that either 1) Dalinar was not doing something immoral/injust/false by lying and supporting Sadeas' lies or 2) the First Ideal is okay with you doing immoral things for good results. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree?

Edited March 22, 2014 by Moogle

[BrindIf]

That's an interresting discussion you're having there.

 

Here, Dalinar is lying and supporting Sadeas' lies. Sadeas betrayed him and his troops, and Dalinar openly lets him get away with it.

 

This is the equivalent of a witness to a murder telling the police that the murderer they have in custody had nothing to do with it. Hence his soldier's grumbles, who find what Dalinar is doing unjust.

 

So, when you say that

I disagree strongly.

 

Dalinar aided Sadeas here. It was immoral.

 

My question is, is it immoral by Alethi's standards?

I don't think so.

I can't be sure, as I do not share their standards. We know at least slavery is no problem them, and that Sadeas leaving the battlefield was not blameworthy either.

Edited March 22, 2014 by BrindIf

[name_here]

Also, it would only be equivelent to lying to the police if Saedas had done something illegal. He had not, so telling a lie that no one at all actually believed did not in fact make it less likely he would be punished for his not-actually-a-crime.

[hoser]

I struggle with these arguments.  Are these not straw man arguments?

Consider this instance

1a Nohadon says it means "don't choose any bad option ever or else you've done bad"

1b."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". 

1c. Dalinar would be forced to go after Sadeas because otherwise he'd be doing something bad (letting a murderer go free).

Statement 1b says that a result achieved by bad means is not good.  Statement 1a says that a result achieved by bad means is bad.  Statement 1c demands that Dalinar act in a way that will be suicidal and ineffective or he is violating 1b. 

 

I ...

2a “Of course,” Dalinar said, his voice even. “You did what you had to do.”

 

2b Here, Dalinar is lying and supporting Sadeas' lies. Sadeas betrayed him and his troops, and Dalinar openly lets him get away with it.

 

2c This is the equivalent of a witness to a murder telling the police that the murderer they have in custody had nothing to do with it. Hence his soldier's grumbles, who find what Dalinar is doing unjust.

The book has statement 2a, an ambiguous non-confrontational statement. 2b is an arguably inaccurate interpretation including the questionable assertion that it is a lie.  2c is a further exaggerated analogy. 

 

These steps of questionable interpretation and (what I see as) exaggeration undermine the validity of any subsequent argument IMO.