“I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.”

[Awesomeness Summoned he/him]

I haven't read every post in here so sorry if I rehash something that was already said but wanted to give my 2 cents on the original topic. The third ideal jarred me a bit as well at first because it seemed so similar to the second but after I thought about it I realized it is making a very different point. Someone in here mentioned how it's not the actual words but the intent that matters for the ideals and how we might be getting hung up on how Kaladin worded it so here is my interpretation of their intent.

Ideal two: I will protect people

Ideal three: I will not be a judge and jury.

Its not the job of the windrunners to decide who is worthy of protection and who deserves to die. That's the skybreaker's job. The second ideal is meaningless if they can just ignore it when they decide they don't like the person or if they decide it's protecting the greater good to let someone die. The reason Syl was dying was because Kal was making a conscious decision to protect the kingdom as a whole by letting Elhokar die unjustly. That isn't his call to make, he's just supposed to protect people in danger and Elhokar certainly was.

[Islington]

Man that trolley experiment is stupid. "You decided to only kill 1 person? But that's wrong." Yeah, computer, but killing 5 people is also wrong, so why not limit the amount of wrongness? Either way I'm going to years of therapy. 

[Gabriele she/her]

What this world is missing is politicssprens.

 

But then, what I love about these scenes is that it is about honour and not politics. I got ASOIAF for the latter.

[Leuthie]

"Is it morally objectionable to kill anyone unless all other options have been explored?"

Yes

"Will you turn the train to kill 1 or not turn it to kill 5?"

Turn in.

"But you said it was morally objectionable to kill someone!?"

Ummm...you gave me no other options, so all options had been explored. As such, I was morally consistent in killing the one to save the five. Dumb chull. Oh, and no, the happiness of the majority isn't my concern in these matters; rather, the continued opportunity at life. So my other answer you're confused about is consistent, as well.

As for torture: I find no moral objection in tickle torturing my wife until she passes out if she won't give me the damnation XBox One controller, so no, torture isn't always morally objectionable.

Stupid philosophers

[Awesomeness Summoned he/him]

Experiment spoiler

I was inconsistent in the trolley test namely because they didn't adequately convince me that dropping a fat man in front of a train would stop it. Yes, I'll divert the track to sacrifice one life for five because that would "absolutely" be the outcome. Is it a guarantee a fat man will stop a train? Not so much. More than likely you'll just end up with six dead people instead of five.

[Edgedancer he/him]

Ont the third ideal. I like to think of it as an anti-Odium clause. It keeps the KR from being corrupted, always remember hatred is a big thing in this series. I also agree with the whole I don´t get to decide when I follow my ideals and when I do not.

 

On the experiment. Prove to me that these five men surviving is better for the totall sum of human happiness. Maybe the 5 only have themself and the 1 has a trijillion close friends or another one of 100000 possibilitys. I´m not inconsistend. I just don´t presume myself to be all-knowing and admitt that I´m incapable of 100% predicting the consequenses of all my actions. Bah!

[Fifth of Daybreak he/him]

Bahahaha. There is no right answer. The experiment berates you no matter what choices you make. The reactions are priceless though.

[Edgedancer he/him]

Bahahaha. There is no right answer. The experiment berates you no matter what choices you make. The reactions are priceless though.

Personally, my problem isn´t that it berates me. I know that there are no right answere here. (It´s different in the follow up test where you could drive your trolly in a wall or something but thats not the point right now.) Heck, the test never even tells me that my choices are "wrong" or "bad". My problem is that in berating me the test uses an argument on my "consistency" that implies that the test either doesn´t know it own terms or is God and has complete authorithy over everything involved but hasen´t given me said context for my decision, yet still uses it to judge me.

Maybe I´m a bit touchy because I already had to deal with too many cases of false logic today.

[Terra of Roshar she/her]

Personally, my problem isn´t that it berates me. I know that there are no right answere here. (It´s different in the follow up test where you could drive your trolly in a wall or something but thats not the point right now.) Heck, the test never even tells me that my choices are "wrong" or "bad". My problem is that in berating me the test uses an argument on my "consistency" that implies that the test either doesn´t know it own terms or is God and has complete authorithy over everything involved but hasen´t given me said context for my decision, yet still uses it to judge me.

Maybe I´m a bit touchy because I already had to deal with too many cases of false logic today.

This. I said torture was unjustified in the beginning, because I know that in the real world, torture doesn't work very well at all. But then at the end, it says that it has a 75% chance of success. Then yells at me for my inconsistency when it forced me to be inconsistent by giving inaccurate statistics. Grrr...

[Moogle]

Bahahaha. There is no right answer. The experiment berates you no matter what choices you make. The reactions are priceless though.

 

The test gave me a consistency score of 100% and praised me.

 

I think the issues most people have with it are vague wording and how easy it is to misinterpret things on these sorts of quizzes.

 

My choices were:

Question 1: Torture, as a matter of principle, is always morally wrong.

No

 

Question 2: The morality of an action is determined by whether, compared to the other available options, it maximises the sum total of happiness of all the people affected by it.

No

 

Question 3: It is always, and everywhere, wrong to cause another person's death - assuming they wish to stay alive - if this outcome is avoidable.

No

 

Question 4: If you can save the lives of innocent people without reducing the sum total of human happiness, and without putting your own life at risk, you are morally obliged to do so.

Yes

 

Should he turn the train (1 dead); or should he allow it to keep going (5 dead)?

Turn the Train

 

Should he push the fat man onto the track (1 dead); or allow the train to continue (5 dead)?

Push the fat man onto the track

 

Should Marty push the fat saboteur onto the track (1 dead); or allow the train to continue (5 dead)?

Push the fat saboteur onto the track

 

Should the fat man be tortured in the hope that he will reveal the location of the nuclear device?

Yes, the fat man should be tortured

Edited April 11, 2014 by Moogle

[Ati]

Darn it EMT, the trolley problem and its relatives have always given me a headache.  If Brandon reads this thread and gets an idea for some kind of runaway Chull trolley for book three, you and I are going to have words.

[Shaggai]

It's an extension of the First Ideal. Journey before destination. If you kill people/let people die because you think the world would be better without them, you're putting the destination before the journey.

[Moogle]

It's an extension of the First Ideal. Journey before destination. If you kill people/let people die because you think the world would be better without them, you're putting the destination before the journey.

 

I'm not so sure. I'm pretty confident that the First Ideal allows for Adolin to kill Sadeas without getting him into any issues, since apparently the Dustbringers/Willshapers would have been fine with it.

[Islington]

 

The test gave me a consistency score of 100% and praised me.

 

I think the issues most people have with it are vague wording and how easy it is to misinterpret things on these sorts of quizzes.

 

If only we were all as clever as you.

[PorridgeBrick he/him]

I'm not so sure. I'm pretty confident that the First Ideal allows for Adolin to kill Sadeas without getting him into any issues, since apparently the Dustbringers/Willshapers would have been fine with it.

 

Unless the First Ideal is meaningless, just an artificial construct to give orders common purpose. In that case, they could have been fine with it even if it broke the First Ideal.

[Shaggai]

I'm not so sure. I'm pretty confident that the First Ideal allows for Adolin to kill Sadeas without getting him into any issues, since apparently the Dustbringers/Willshapers would have been fine with it.

Each order would have a different interpretation of the First Ideal. Windrunners are based on protection, so they must protect, even if they think things would be better if they didn't. Skybreakers are justice, so they must serve justice even if they think things would be better if they didn't. We don't know about the oaths of the Dustbringers, but presumably they have something similar.

[Numb]

I'm not so sure. I'm pretty confident that the First Ideal allows for Adolin to kill Sadeas without getting him into any issues, since apparently the Dustbringers/Willshapers would have been fine with it.

 

The first ideal doesn't actually seem to matter. Seems to me more an unlocking than an actual continuous link like the other ideals.

[Observer]

Guys, guys, let's not get into First Ideal arguments, that has its place elsewhere. The point has been made, the wording of Kaladin might be a little wishy washy, but Brandon says the words themselves don't matter, only the idea. The point of the Windrunners isn't to decide guilt and innocence, that's the Skybreakers. They just keep everybody alive so that they can live to kill Voidbringers another day, and the ideal is saying as much. He will protect everybody, not just those people he thinks deserve protection. I also refuse to rehash his 'argument' with Syl, because we've gone over that enough times, and she can't provide any answers he doesn't know.

Also, even though this is no longer visible, can people please stop with the spoilery titles? Just because it's in a subforum doesn't mean that the front page can't see it.

[Vaspin]

There is a bigger picture with the Ideals of the Knights. The First Ideal isn't some meaningless gateway. I don't know how it was done, but they were made to swear by these oaths to hold to them to guard against the ability of men to use Surges. The First Ideal is what every knight lives by and the following ideals are what shapes the specific Orders. 

 

I also think most of you are forgetting his internal monologue leading up to his swearing of the Third Ideal. It walks you through his entire revelation 

 

"'If I protect..." He coughed. 'If I protect...only the people I like, it only means that I don't care about doing what is right." If he did that, he only cared about what was convenient for himself.'"

 

It continues a bit after that

 

"That was why he'd come back. It was about Tien, it was about Dalinar, and it was about what is right-but most of all it was about protecting people."

 

 

You are part of the Order you are in when you are born. It's who you are. The spren point you in the right direction and enable you to be a badass while doing it. The Immortal Words act as "flash" for the readers, but we get the main substance before. The Third ideal isn't wishy washy as some of you think. We're just seeing it in the frame of reference that is this moment, but Kaladin will always protect people, it's what he was born to do. Earlier on the book Syl brings him to task when he questions her on why he lost access to the Stormlight during the sparring session vs Adolin & Zahel. She challenges him by asking who was he trying to protect. This isn't to say his every action has to be directed towards protecting someone, but going against this innate directive is going against his oaths, against who he is.

[BrindIf]

On the experiment. Prove to me that these five men surviving is better for the totall sum of human happiness. Maybe the 5 only have themself and the 1 has a trijillion close friends or another one of 100000 possibilitys. I´m not inconsistend. I just don´t presume myself to be all-knowing and admitt that I´m incapable of 100% predicting the consequenses of all my actions. Bah!

 

I think that's the whole point. Those tests suppose you can predict any action result and estimate the humanity total hapiness just like that

Well, I am no God, so a human morality is just fine for me, thank you very much... Maybe that just the point for Kaladin too, "what is right" is to protect a drunk man from assassins. He stop trying to guess the bigger figure (and that good, as by killing Elokhar, they would not have get Dalinar as new king), just try to find action is right in the present (what he can sleep with).

[Observer]

Honestly I can't help but wonder if the point of the Windrunners is to keep everybody alive so they can all live to fight another day. The point of the codes, you can't duel somebody if it'll leave a useful man hospitalized when you might need him later. Windrunners keep everybody alive and breathing, no matter who they are or what they've done, because they need every man they can get for the Desolations. Their job is to keep people alive, and later the other Orders can deal with them.

 

Trolly results below, not really On Topic.

I also landed myself a 100% consistency rate, which is odd coming from the answers I gave. Total human happiness means absolutely nothing to me, but I'm more than happy to kill one innocent to save a thousand. I figured, with everybody else's ravings about the test, that it would call me out for inconsitencies.

 

Aaaaand line break again.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Observer

[11thorderknight]

Each order would have a different interpretation of the First Ideal. Windrunners are based on protection, so they must protect, even if they think things would be better if they didn't. Skybreakers are justice, so they must serve justice even if they think things would be better if they didn't. We don't know about the oaths of the Dustbringers, but presumably they have something similar.

 

I don't think any of the orders would HAVE to do anything that they truly thought would be against the greater good. In Kaladin's case, the reason he almost broke his bond is not simply because he (almost) failed to protect Elhokar; it was because he allowed his personal dislike for him to convince himself that it wouldn't really be that bad to let Moash assassinate him. He catches himself just in time, and swears to protect even those he hates - so long as it is right. That's an crucial caveat. If killing Elhokar was truly the right thing to do, a Windrunner would be able to do it. But it clearly was not in this case. 

[Aether he/him]

I don't think any of the orders would HAVE to do anything that they truly thought would be against the greater good. In Kaladin's case, the reason he almost broke his bond is not simply because he (almost) failed to protect Elhokar; it was because he allowed his personal dislike for him to convince himself that it wouldn't really be that bad to let Moash assassinate him. He catches himself just in time, and swears to protect even those he hates - so long as it is right. That's an crucial caveat. If killing Elhokar was truly the right thing to do, a Windrunner would be able to do it. But it clearly was not in this case. 

Indeed. If Elhokar was an evil tyrant, wantonly mucking about with and abusing his powers, then I believe Kaladin could have killed him without a second thought. But in Elhokar's case, as Kaladin came to realise, he really tries. He wants to be good, but he is just currently blatantly incapable in his rule, which is not the same as being evil, and to a Windrunner, that makes all the difference.

 

On a side-note, Elhokar might actually be one of  my favourite characters in the Words of Radiance. True, I consider both Kaladin and Adolin to be among the best characters I've ever read and will always be my true favourites, but Brandon has developed the ability to create really deep and interesting side characters. I site Gaz, Renarin, Bluth and Elhokar as examples of this. The latter showed a surprisingly potent insight into his shortcomings towards the end of the book, which would be the first step to get himself out of the mess he currently is. I have great hopes for him for the coming books.

[happyman he/him]

I don't think any of the orders would HAVE to do anything that they truly thought would be against the greater good. In Kaladin's case, the reason he almost broke his bond is not simply because he (almost) failed to protect Elhokar; it was because he allowed his personal dislike for him to convince himself that it wouldn't really be that bad to let Moash assassinate him. He catches himself just in time, and swears to protect even those he hates - so long as it is right. That's an crucial caveat. If killing Elhokar was truly the right thing to do, a Windrunner would be able to do it. But it clearly was not in this case. 

 

This.  So totally this.  I agree 100%.

 

I think that some of the reason Kaladin was trying to help assassinate Elhokar were:

 

(1) His comrade-in-arms and friend, Moash, really wanted to, in order to get vengeance.  Kaladin knew that that was the real reason.

(2) His hatred of light-eyes made it easier for him to see only the bad in Elhokar.

(3) By the end, he had convinced himself that Elhokar was responsible for the tragedies in his own family (via Roshone) and he wanted revenge as well.

(4) The "for the good of the kingdom" bit really meant "For the good of that part of the kingdom that was my friends and my family, the jerk."  At least when I read the book, every time Kaladin thought that, I felt an undercurrent of unease along the lines of "Is that really the right was to handle this?"

 

My two cents.

[Vasteel he/him]

Where does one draw the line, before they cross the moral threshold? If you protect a man, knowing that if you do - 1,000 or even 10,000 will die tomorrow. What will his oaths demand of him? I feel like that could be a very tough way of living, always trying to decide which is right and which is wrong. Sometimes not even necessarily which is wrong... more like which is more right? I guess it's all relevant to ones perspective.

 

I'm just excited to see how Brandon continues to grow Kaladin's character with this new oath. I swear to god though. I better see a Kaladin vs. Amaram or I will nerd rage.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Vasteel