Why the 4th WR Ideal cannot be about sacrificing some to save many

[Ripheus23]

The idea of sacrificing a few, to save the many, is characteristic of utilitarianism. Now utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory, in which the end justifies the means in the sense that the "end" is an axiom from which the means are rationally inferred. However, the Ideals of the Windrunners are deontological in character. Actually, "Journey before destination," is already deontological in character.* Therefore, there is no way that the 4th Windrunner Ideal is about sacrificing some to save the many. There's no utilitarian calculus in play.

*Consider the difference between, "Go to the tower," and, "Go north, east, east, north, east, north, west, north, north, east, north, west." The first is a prescription of destination, whereas the second is a prescription of orientation.  Teleological ethics amounts to the claim that prescriptions of the first kind are the only axiomatic ones, so that the only rational justification for accepting orientation is as a means of reaching a destination. However, things like "the greatest good of the greatest number" or the sum total of all future consequences for happiness, which are "destinations," are not computable by limited human minds. Accordingly, utilitarian teleology's axioms of destination are not actually rationally defensible in their own right, at least not as naively expressed as such. Kaladin's journey with Sylphrena is about trying, if perhaps eventually failing, to determine the actual rational, objective basis of moral judgment. Because naive utilitarianism is an intuitively attractive position (when one begins serious ethical analysis), it is conceivable that Kaladin might naturally entertain its propositions, but given his own temperament, he would probably end up rejecting them, maybe even "out of hand." Of course, deontological axioms are generally just as suspect, it would seem, so I'm not saying that Kaladin will immediately gravitate towards e.g. some Rosharan statement of the Golden Rule (or the "categorical imperative"), say.

What I suspect is that Kaladin will appreciate that, especially in the Cosmere as he knows it, the subjective is so intertwined with the objective, that dismissing the problem of rational moral judgment on the ground that, "It's all subjective," is a serious intellectual mistake. We might not yet quite know what is objectively good or evil, right or wrong. We might notice that a lot of our beliefs about these things are unnecessarily tied up with prejudices we have inherited from our parents or traumatic incidents or whatever. We might mistake, "It's ethical," for, "It's commanded by God." And so on and on. But Kaladin and Sylphrena will recognize that the problem of morality is objectively real in itself, regardless of the subjectivity of our occurrent answers thereto. And they will recognize that utilitarian teleology is too simplistic an approach to ultimately solve the problem.

[Calderis he/him]

Because they're Windrunners, and not Skybreakers. 

We've seen the way Windrunners function. An Oath in direct opposition to the nature of their spren makes no sense. 

[ZenBossanova]

I expect that since the values of the Windrunners are protecting and leading, the last two oaths will involve leading. 

My guess is that Kaladin will become involved with Jasnah, and have to lead Alethkar. 

[Dalakaar he/him]

Here's an interesting way to really tie Kaladins hands with an oath he'll have a bloody hard time holding.

"I will only save lives, I will not take them."

Kaladin gets the kid gloves if he wants his armor. No more killing. To be clear, not sure I actually believe this'll be it, just an interesting idea that'd really muddle his choices, and works within the confines of his surgeon/do-no-harm background.

[Juanaton he/him]

42 minutes ago, Dalakaar said:

Here's an interesting way to really tie Kaladins hands with an oath he'll have a bloody hard time holding.

"I will only save lives, I will not take them."

Kaladin gets the kid gloves if he wants his armor. No more killing. To be clear, not sure I actually believe this'll be it, just an interesting idea that'd really muddle his choices, and works within the confines of his surgeon/do-no-harm background.

This doesn’t fit with the wind runner in Dalinar’s vision who was definitely able to kill AND had his armor. There are individual differences in the oaths, but I doubt they go so far as to allow some to kill while prohibiting others from doing so.

[TousenShadowForged he/him]

probably something about letting go

[ScavellTane]

Quote

“You have to learn when to care, son,” Lirin said softly. “And when to let go. You’ll see. I had similar problems when I was younger. You’ll grow calluses.”

 

[old man moomba he/him]

What I assumed, was that Kaladin's fourth Ideal is about coming to terms with the fact he can't save everyone.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Dr. Dapper

[Ripheus23]

17 hours ago, Calderis said:

Because they're Windrunners, and not Skybreakers. 

Every Order has to swear, "Journey before destination." So every Order is non-utilitarian at the outset.

Or, more specifically, let's say Honor represents deontological standards, Cultivation teleological ones. So the Ideals and their Orders depend not on an antagonism between naive forms of both perspectives, but a mature reconciliation thereof. In any event, however, the naive utilitarian calculus will not do, anymore than the naive deontological one ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") would.

[Calderis he/him]

24 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

Every Order has to swear, "Journey before destination." So every Order is non-utilitarian at the outset.

This is false. The first oath is not that simple. All oaths are open to interpretation and the way the first oath has been presented to us from Teft to Kaladin is only a single interpretation. 

Quote

AndrewHB (paraphrased)

Is Niccolò Machiavelli's political theory--the ends justify the means--incompatible with the Knights Radiant's First Oath?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

No. Although many of the Orders of Knights Radiant would find Machiavelli's theory, that the ends justify the means, incompatible with additional oaths and/or values of that Order, there are some Orders who could accept a Machiavellian. (Brandon said that the Skybreakers are where a Machiavellian could find a home.)

Footnote: A follow up question was asked in the signing line.
source

Quote

AndrewHB

I wondered if I could follow up to that Machiavelli question. Would Elsecallers be a-- one of those other, uh-- one of those...

Brandon Sanderson

So, yeah. Elsecallers are fairly compatible. Like, Elsecallers feel like the journey is... the journey is the entire species, right? And that the journey is the destination. *inaudible*

Footnote: Referenced question was asked in the General Q&A.
source

Prior to OB, I wrote a thread specifically to combat this common, but flawed, thinking. 

If the first oath were the same meaning for all Radiants, Malata could not be doing what she's doing. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Calderis

[Ripheus23]

1 minute ago, Calderis said:

If the first oath were the same meaning for all Radiants, Malata could not be doing what she's doing. 

There are different senses in which it is the same, or different. As an abstraction, it has to be the same. As a concrete application, of course it's different. Now the follow-up to the Machiavelli question explains the sense in which "the end justifies the means" is acceptable, here: "that the journey is the destination" such that there is no gap between ends and means. But now as I said originally, "Now utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory, in which the end justifies the means in the sense that the 'end' is an axiom from which the means are rationally inferred." Of course, in imperative logic, if an imperative A is inferred from an imperative B, B has "rational justification" as inferred. But that might be the only degree or form of rational justification it has. It's like in an assertoric argument: a conclusion might be inferred in a valid way, but from unsound premises.

Anyway, therefore, I never denied that imperatives can be inferred from other ones and that those which are inferred, have such a justification. I pointed out that utilitarianism in its naive form is not rationally defensible because it lacks a rational grounding for its destination-imperatives. Humans can't compute the infinite future sums of the consequences of their actions. Moreover, there are ways to discursively justify imperatives besides appeal to inference from other imperatives. Discursion isn't all inference, or more precisely it's not reducible to generic deductive inference. There is also erotetic inference, for example.

[Void89 he/him]

Way too many big words here, please consider people who don't have english as their first language and 2 - 3 degrees...

 

As for the topic, I think it is possible that it has something to do with letting people die to save more - let's say 2 cities are attacked - you can only be in one place at a time so you have to make a choice and basically sacrifice one bunch because you go and save the other ones leaving the rest to die - you can't save everybody. Not saying though that you have to actively kill some little group to save many - that would be twisted

[RShara she/her]

As I said in this thread:

I think it'll be something like, "I will accept death as part of the journey" or "I will allow others to choose their own paths, even if it ends in death."

[Ixthos Luke/Luke]

15 minutes ago, RShara said:

As I said in this thread:

I think it'll be something like, "I will accept death as part of the journey" or "I will allow others to choose their own paths, even if it ends in death."

To add to that, accepting is also a part of leadership, that you do the best you can to protect and to lead - which are in many ways the same thing - but in the end you have to accept that some will be lost, or sacrifices have to be made - not sacrifices of killing those you protect, but sacrifices in who it is possible to protect. I think the fifth ideal then would also be "I will lead others in order to protect them / help them in protecting themselves" or a similar idea, that leading them will also protect them.

Ultimately a Windrunner shouldn't sacrifice people, but there is a difference between sacrificing and triage.

[Bigmikey357 he/him]

Ripheus, I feel like I'm reading the DSM-IV when looking at your post.Anyway, I'll try to respond. All Oaths are individual in nature and only really linked by a general theme. The first Ideal is the same for all yet it means something different to each Order, the Orders seperate broadly along personality traits. I once seperated the Orders based on jobs in the military, which I could expand on if anyone wants. 

Anyway, based on what we know of Windrunners so far, they are not the Order for which sacraficing one to save many fits into their tenants. I've actually never heard anyone suggesting that as a potential Oath for Kaladin. It is possible that one of the Orders may allign with that statement due to the flexibility of the Ideals but Windrunner ain't the one. In any case it would never be as simple as that in my opinion. My take on Kaladin and his potential 4th was always that he must accept that cannot save everyone, he must be able to allow others to protect themselves even unto death.

[Solant he/him]

Ok, to summarize..

The remainder of our Kholinar expedition is trapped in the CR and being harried by Fused. They are nearly out of stormlight. Shallan had unsuccessfully attempted to open the Theylan City oathgate back to the PR, and now Adolin has taken a spear to the gut and is bleeding heavily. He tells the party to leave him, and asks for Kaladin's knife. Kaladin thinks to himself, "this can't be the end, I can't fail him". Syl looks at him, nods, and tells him to say the words.

We also have this: 

My spren claims that recording this will be good for me, so here I go. Everyone says I will swear the Fourth Ideal soon, and in so doing, earn my armor. I simply don’t think that I can. Am I not supposed to want to help people? —From drawer 10-12, sapphire

And this:

I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right. The Third Ideal meant standing up for anyone, if needed. But who decided what was “right”? Which side was he supposed to protect? The Fourth Ideal was unknown to him, but the closer he drew to it, the more frightened he became. What would it demand of him?

I feel like the answer has to be in this somewhere. Assuming Syl wants him to swear the oath, enabling him to save everyone involved, it doesn't make sense to swear to allow the opposite to happen. 

Also it may or may not be important to note the name of the chapter with the sapphire gem is "That Others Might Stand". Sounds slightly oathy to me.

[Rainier]

On 12/22/2018 at 8:19 PM, ZenBossanova said:

I expect that since the values of the Windrunners are protecting and leading, the last two oaths will involve leading. 

This is the key point that I think everyone should grasp. Each order has two values, and four oaths specific to them. Oath 1 is always the same, oaths 2 and 3 are on one of the two values, and oaths 4 and 5 are on the other value. I'd even say that the order of these values puts them in a hierarchy.

Ignoring the Windrunners for a second, let's take a look at the other orders whose oaths we have seen.

Edgedancers

Quote

Loving & Healing

I will remember those who have been forgotten.

I will listen to those who have been ignored. 

Clearly these two oaths are about loving, not healing. Therefore I expect Lift's next oaths to be about healing specifically.

 

Skybreakers

Quote

Just & Confident

Ideal of Justice

Ideal of Dedication

Ideal of Crusade

Ideal of Law

I won't quote the specific words, because we get the best explanation of what's behind the words with this order. The first Ideal is named for one of the Divine Attributes, so we're right on the money there. The Ideal of Dedication can't be confidence, because it is necessarily deferring authority to another entity, but then accepting that entity as the source of Justice.

The second pair are all about Confidence, that is confidence in your own judgement and ability to uphold your own laws and ideals. The Crusade allows you to determine your own target, and thus require confidence that you've picked the right target for your judgement. Ideal of Law is confidence taken to the extreme, where your own confidence is the standard you hold yourself to.

 

So yes, I expect Kaladin needs to learn to Lead, even when it means he can't always Protect. Just like Skybreakers need to learn to balance their adherence to the Law with their own personal sense of Justice and Confidence in themselves, the Windrunners will need to learn how to lead when that leadership means leaving someone unprotected.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Rainier

[Tglassy]

I've always felt that his fourth ideal would be "I will allow those who can to protect themselves."  It's a further clarification on the second and third ideals.  "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves" and "I will protect even those I hate".  

 

He wants to protect Dalinar, but Dalinar can, and in this case, should, protect himself.  People need struggle, they need to fight in order to grow and become the best version of themselves.  By protecting everyone, by taking up all the challenge and all the problems on to himself, Kaladin would be denying them that ability.

 

But there are things that a person cannot protect themselves from.  A superior enemy, an unstoppable storm.  Things that Kaladin can protect them from that they can't protect themselves from.  The Ideals are leading Kaladin to those people, to protect only those who are incapable of protecting themselves, while allowing those who can to do so.  That is what I think the fourth ideal is.  It isn't about "Sacrificing the few to save the many".  That isn't consistent with Windrunner idealism.  It's about realizing that you aren't the only person capable of handling a problem, and sometimes, you're not even the BEST person to handle a problem.

 

But if you tell someone who's whole life is about helping other people, about keeping everyone else safe, that their friends and family are competent enough to protect themselves, and they need to let them do that, it would feel like they are abandoning them.  Like they are allowing them to die.  It's a hubris, is what it is.  It's a form of selfish arrogance to believe that the Windrunner, and only the Windrunner, can protect people from bad things.  And when used in the context of Kaladin and Dalinar, it is actually an insult to Dalinar.  Kaladin believed, in his heart, that Dalinar could not protect himself.  When the reality is that Dalinar was moments away from becoming the most powerful Knight Radiant seen to date, and with only his second ideal, which came as a surprise to the Storm Father!  If Kaladin had succeeded in getting to Dalinar before he had his epiphany, he would have kept Dalinar from making that epiphany, and would have denied him the final part of the struggle that allowed him to grow.  

 

I think that is what the Windrunners need to learn.  People need struggle.  People need to fight.  It is true that often times people are forced to fight something they can't, and wind up dead, and those are the times they need a protector.  But when they are able to handle their own fight, when they are able to do it themselves, they need to.  Or they don't grow. As a father, it is the hardest thing in the world to see my daughter fall, or get stuck, and step back and allow her to figure her own way out.  I'm her father, I will always be there if she is incapable to doing something herself, but if she doesn't try, she will never know what she can succeed at.  

[Winds Alight she/her]

@Tglassy I like your post a lot, and it makes sense what you say!

I'm quite amused now about the idea of Kaladin trying to be the "father" of everyone on Roshar and protect them.

[TequilaJack]

The 4th ideal grants Shardplate, so I'd expect it to be something like:

"I'll protect even at cost of my own life"

Or something like that. If you get ready to sacrifice your own life...then you get additional protection via plate.

 

[Winds Alight she/her]

8 hours ago, TequilaJack said:

The 4th ideal grants Shardplate, so I'd expect it to be something like:

"I'll protect even at cost of my own life"

Or something like that. If you get ready to sacrifice your own life...then you get additional protection via plate.

 

But then Kaladin would have gotten his Plate back in ... IDK, Amaram's army?
He has always been willing to die to protect others.

[Calderis he/him]

12 minutes ago, Winds Alight said:

But then Kaladin would have gotten his Plate back in ... IDK, Amaram's army?
He has always been willing to die to protect others.

Not to mention that shardplate is apparently the fourth for others as well. 

The oaths don't seem to have any relevance to the things they grant so far. 

[RShara she/her]

19 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Not to mention that shardplate is apparently the fourth for others as well. 

The oaths don't seem to have any relevance to the things they grant so far. 

And also, the comment from the Windrunner in the gemstone archive, about how "shouldn't he want to save everyone?"

[+Oltux72 he/him]

On 12/28/2018 at 7:58 AM, Calderis said:

Not to mention that shardplate is apparently the fourth for others as well. 

The oaths don't seem to have any relevance to the things they grant so far. 

How do Lightweavers get their plate?

[Quantus he/him]

Im still expecting the Windrunner's fourth Ideal to be something more along the lines of accepting that there are times when they cannot and/or should not get involved.  Not about Failure, but about occasionally standing aside and getting out of the way of somebody else's fight, more along the lines of how Parents need to eventually outgrow their Helicopter-Parent style Protectiveness and let others Do for themselves.  I think that is the meaning of this Epigraph (OB 86):

Quote   "My spren claims that recording this will be good for me, so here I go. Everyone says I will swear the Fourth Ideal soon, and in so doing, earn my armor. I simply don't think that I can. Am I not supposed to want to help people?"   I think Sacrifice is the theme of the Stonewards, the way Protection is for the Windrunners, Law&Order is for the Skybreakers, and the Edgedancers seem focused on the Ignored/Forgotten.  See below Epigraph OB 58 Quote   "As a Stoneward, I spent my entire life looking to sacrifice myself. I secretly worry that is the cowardly way. The easy way out."