FistOfLegend Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I disagree with the premise of your argument, Moogle, as it seems to hinge on applying generalities to specifics. Letting a murderer go free is always wrong. That statement is untrue. Letting a murderer go free is a general action, which is either right or wrong based on the specific details involving the specific case. It would be more accurate to say: Letting a murderer go free is generally wrong. Example: You are a soldier in a castle. Nasty Creatures are attacking the castle and slaughtering everyone. You manage to gather a bunch of innocents (women, children, elderly) in a room and are protecting them from said Nasty Creatures. During your stand, you see a known murderer walking around. You can either leave the innocents unprotected and go imprison the murderer, or you can stay, protect the innocents, and as a consequence of this, the murderer goes free. Going after the murderer, in that specific case, would be wrong. Not because of any greater good argument, but simply because it would be wrong to abandon innocent people. In some other situation, it would be right to go after the murderer. "Letting a murderer go free" is a blanket statement, it is inherently grey, not black or white. Just like: "killing" is a grey statement. You cannot say: "killing is wrong" just as you cannot say "killing is right." Killing can either be right or wrong, depending on the specific situation. Killing an innocent person is wrong. Killing a murderer who is in the process of attempting another murder is right. So let's look at Dalinar's specific case. He has a known murderer, Sadeas, in front of him. However, he also has a bunch of innocents that he must protect (bridgemen, his soldiers, his soldier's women and children, and the Alethi people as a whole). He can either abandon said innocents to their fate, or he can let the murderer walk free. Going after Sadeas in that case would be wrong, because it would mean abandoning the innocents that he has a duty to protect (civil war, Desolations, etc.) Letting Amaram go free is similar. Sure, Dalinar could probably figure out SOME way to stop Amaram. But by doing so he would potentially abandon the innocents that he has a duty to protect. He chooses, rightly, to protect the innocent, and as a consequence: Amaram goes free. If he were to go after Amaram, it would not be an outside consequence that the innocents are left unprotected. It would be an actual abandonment. In one case, the positive action is protecting the innocent, and the negative consequence is letting a murderer go free. In the other case, the positive action is bringing a murderer to justice, but the negative action (not consequence) would be abandoning the innocent. In the first instance, there is only a good action, but it has some bad consequences. In the second, there would be a good action AND a bad action, which would result in horrible consequences. The First Oath demands that Dalinar do his duty, protect the innocent, at the cost of letting bad people go free. And Dalinar did not aid Sadeas. Sadeas was in a position of strength. If Dalinar were to attack Sadeas after the Tower attack, it is likely that Sadeas would have managed to survive (Dalinar and his men were exhausted), and then Dalinar would have really aided Sadeas in Sadeas' ultimate goals of causing civil war and strife. Attacking Sadeas would have played right into Sadeas' hands. The First Oath requires one to be moral, not to be a fool. 2
kaellok he/him Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 1. So let's look at Dalinar's specific case. He has a known murderer, Sadeas, in front of him. However, he also has a bunch of innocents that he must protect (bridgemen, his soldiers, his soldier's women and children, and the Alethi people as a whole). He can either abandon said innocents to their fate, or he can let the murderer walk free. Going after Sadeas in that case would be wrong, because it would mean abandoning the innocents that he has a duty to protect (civil war, Desolations, etc.) 2. Letting Amaram go free is similar. Sure, Dalinar could probably figure out SOME way to stop Amaram. But by doing so he would potentially abandon the innocents that he has a duty to protect. He chooses, rightly, to protect the innocent, and as a consequence: Amaram goes free. If he were to go after Amaram, it would not be an outside consequence that the innocents are left unprotected. It would be an actual abandonment. Snipped a bit from your post, and added numbers. Towards 1: The explanations of the first ideal that we have in-book do not discuss "lesser of two evil" scenarios; they are just pretty blanket "if the journey is wrong, so is the destination." Allowing a known murderer to walk free is always wrong. As your example shows, there are just ways to make it so that going after said murderer is more wrong than letting them walk free. In the same way, I believe that it's always wrong to take a life, but sometimes it's more wrong to not take that life. Dalinar is faced with this same situation with Sadeas. It's wrong to let him live and go free--but it's also wrong to attack, kill, or aggressively confront him. Sadly, the First Ideal does not differentiate between these, so no matter what Dalinar does, it's in violation. Towards 2: Dalinar knows Amaram is a liar and a thief by the end. He has every reason to believe what Kaladin said originally. But, the only action that Dalinar takes it to let Amaram know that he knows, and to strip him of his perfectly meaningless KR cloak. At the time of the confrontation, Amaram is very much in the middle of Dalinar's strength. Amaram is vulnerable, not Dalinar. As Dalinar's army is preparing to ride off for war, the danger of provoking a conflict is even relatively minor--what's Sadeas going to do, after all? Dalinar violates the First Ideal, multiple times. He does it by not standing up to Sadeas after the Tower, and providing a clear and shining example of how to live (and die) a life that is virtuous, honorable, and brooks no evil. Yes, he would have died. Yes, his men would have died, too, and it may have fractured the Alethi kingdom. That isn't the point, though. The First Ideal isn't about living, or survival; it's about how you live. Dalinar violates the First Ideal again when he lets Amaram walk free, for so very much less of a reason than he did with Sadeas. He does so for expediency and the result he is working towards: a united people to face the Desolation. That really only reinforces how it's a violation, though. 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. It doesn't matter what Alethi standards are; they are irrelevant to the moral code laid out by Nahodan in The Way of Kings. 1
Aminar Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Moogle, the entirety of the social contract is about having a system to handle justice to remove personal bias. If Dalinar or Elhokar were to persecute Sadeas personally they would destroy the power of the laws they represent and become true tyrants. That makes going after him wrong. Putting him on trial could work but it isn't a tenable solution because civil war. Knowingly cauaing that war would be wrong. As would be acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Any action other than inaction would have been against their greater responsabilities. That left dueling him(which they tried) and murdering him(which Adolin did.) This will cause an enormous amount of suffering. But it seems clear you want to willfully see the radiants and heralds as naive idiots with no understanding of how to keep power from being overly exploited, back before they were completely broken wretches. Go ahead. I don't think it will lead you to proper understanding of the series at all, as it ignores a great deal of context and theme. When Brandon signed my copy of The Way of Kings he wrote Life before Death. If he felt that was in any way a negative ideal do you think he'd write it? I don't. This isn't the kind of path he'd explore.
BrindIf Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Reading kawllock last post, I'm thinking Dalinar had a serious blind spot about letting villains free. About Sadeas, he really tries and can't find a way, but what about Amaram or Roshone, thinking removing them to a slightly less important position would be enough to avoid them doing any more harm... I suppose it can't be a coincidence, and going through that will be his path to become a Radiant. 3
Recommended Posts